From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 9A4513858D3C; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:32:29 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9A4513858D3C From: "arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/102419] New: [concepts] [regression] return-type-requirement of "Y" does not check that T::type actually exists Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:32:29 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: arthur.j.odwyer 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: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:32:29 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102419 Bug ID: 102419 Summary: [concepts] [regression] return-type-requirement of "Y" does not check that T::type actually exists Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- // https://godbolt.org/z/GWjYYnrnM template concept Y =3D true; template concept X =3D requires { { 1 } -> Y; }; static_assert(!X); :8:15: error: static assertion failed 8 | static_assert(!X); | ^~~~~~~ Clang and MSVC both appear to have the correct behavior -- or what I believ= e to be the consistent/useful/majority behavior, anyway -- which is that since T::type doesn't exist, the concept shouldn't be satisfied. This seems to be a regression; according to Godbolt, GCC 10.3 had the corre= ct behavior but GCC 11.1 lost it.=20 I wonder if #92268 could be related somehow, since it seems to be something like the inverse issue (nonexistent nested type causing a hard error in 10.= x), and it was marked fixed presumably somewhere in the 11.x timeframe.=