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 E77683858D1E; Tue,  8 Feb 2022 20:58:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E77683858D1E
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, 08 Feb 2022 20:58:28 +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: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103904-4-LlYBlbjs7s@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, 08 Feb 2022 20:58:29 -0000

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

--- Comment #11 from Hannes Hauswedell <h2+bugs at fsfe dot org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Hannes Hauswedell from comment #8)
> > Hi, I wanted to ask politely whether you have discussed this issue and =
came
> > to a conclusion?
>=20
> No, because the current priority is gcc 12.

I just realised that the issue was actually not that old, sorry for bugging
you! Looking forward to GCC12 :)


(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> I think we should backport it except for the removal of the default
> constructors for {back_,front_,}insert_iterator, ostream_iterator and
> basic_istream_view. If we keep those default constructible on the release
> branches I think the chance of breaking any code is minimal.

That's sounds like a good plan :+1:=