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 158C13858405; Tue,  4 Jan 2022 15:55:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 158C13858405
From: "h2+bugs at fsfe dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/103904] [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10
 and 11
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:55:49 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: h2+bugs at fsfe dot org
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-103904-4-FwuT7kOXZU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103904-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103904-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:55:50 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103904

--- Comment #4 from Hannes Hauswedell <h2+bugs at fsfe dot org> ---
Well... we also try to avoid breaking changes in the standard ^^

The thing is that code that relies on the old definition will break one way=
 or
another (and independent of compiler flags). The longer GCC compilers are b=
eing
shipped with the old behaviour, the more code will be broken, or not?
With GCC10 being in common distributions like Debian stable, we are actively
contributing to the old definition being around...

Since views were introduced in GCC10 (and are not an old and established
feature), I think that the situation here is different from for other "brea=
king
changes" and that we should quickly try to homogenize the GCC behaviour for=
 as
many people as possible. I think that was also the reasoning for "allowing"=
 the
change in the IS.

[Note that I was not strongly in favour of this change, I am just scared of
writing code that might change behaviour unknowingly soon ]=