From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id DEF3B3858C2F; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 09:43:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DEF3B3858C2F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1663667006;
	bh=BrFQKSlZhsvMwHE32+xRSgTE3d5zp24j72D6GwTNNts=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xiGQD6pAZvroEnpyjvEQ3s7Ji4M6E21FCPmqowU+j4DcuCSiLkK4vqaq/LuPG/j/o
	 Ase5zf8pqO+UDE3qdvhXpxWJk6mu6NcxZN6ZAJ+s2Yg9LuTlPmX84LLNi6sNPDQSsy
	 xrK1awKRKYJzMicvWwgXGxzrO9jQNlS48ZICf1LQ=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/100470] std::is_nothrow_move_constructible incorrect
 behavior for explicitly defaulted members
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 09:43:25 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed bug_status keywords
 cf_reconfirmed_on
Message-ID: <bug-100470-4-xer3VP94DN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100470-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100470-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100470

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-09-20

--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1286r2.html says =
that
S" has a potentially-throwing move constructor.

It looks like the __is_nothrow_constructible built-in gets this wrong:

using size_t =3D decltype(sizeof(0));
void* operator new(size_t, void* p) noexcept { return p; }

namespace std {
template<typename T> T&& declval() noexcept;

template<typename T>
constexpr bool is_nothrow_move_constructible_v
  =3D noexcept(new (declval<void*>()) T(declval<T>()));
}

struct S1{
    S1(S1&&) noexcept(false);
};
struct S2{
    S2(S2&&) noexcept(false) =3D default;
};
struct S3{
    S3(S3&&) noexcept(false){}
};
struct S4{
    S4(S4&&) =3D default;
};

static_assert(!std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<S1>);  // OK
static_assert(!std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<S2>);  // OK
static_assert(!std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<S3>);  // OK
static_assert( std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<S4>);  // OK

static_assert(!__is_nothrow_constructible(S1, S1));  // OK
static_assert(!__is_nothrow_constructible(S2, S2));  // failed
static_assert(!__is_nothrow_constructible(S3, S3));  // OK
static_assert( __is_nothrow_constructible(S4, S4));  // OK

This makes it a libstdc++ regression in GCC 11.1 and later, because we use
__is_nothrow_construcitble now, instead of a pure library implementation for
the traits.=