From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A8006385802E; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:47:30 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A8006385802E From: "rs2740 at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/100823] New: Special member functions of common_iterator should be conditionally trivial Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 05:47:30 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rs2740 at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone Message-ID: 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 05:47:30 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100823 Bug ID: 100823 Summary: Special member functions of common_iterator should be conditionally trivial Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- At least as a QoI matter, the special member functions of common_iterator should be trivial when the corresponding special member function of variant= is. Given that the standard depicts a variant exposition-only memb= er with implicitly declared special member functions, it is arguable that this= is actually required. There appears to be a couple other conformance issues too: - the move special members are missing - the copy assignment calls the converting assignment operator, but unlike = the latter, there's no !valueless_by_exception() precondition on the (implicitly declared) copy assignment.=