public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug libstdc++/104099] New: [12 Regression] basic_string(nullptr) constructor should not be present before C++23
@ 2022-01-18 15:59 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 15:59 ` [Bug libstdc++/104099] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-18 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104099
Bug ID: 104099
Summary: [12 Regression] basic_string(nullptr) constructor
should not be present before C++23
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
#include <string>
struct S
{
operator const char*() const { return ""; }
operator std::nullptr_t() const { return {}; }
};
std::string s{ S{} };
This is valid in C++20 and earlier, but ill-formed in C++23. GCC rejects this
in C++20, because I made P2166R1 apply to C++11 and later (r12-4140).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/104099] [12 Regression] basic_string(nullptr) constructor should not be present before C++23
2022-01-18 15:59 [Bug libstdc++/104099] New: [12 Regression] basic_string(nullptr) constructor should not be present before C++23 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-01-18 15:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 20:43 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 20:44 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-18 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104099
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed| |2022-01-18
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3 |P1
Known to fail| |12.0
Known to work| |11.2.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/104099] [12 Regression] basic_string(nullptr) constructor should not be present before C++23
2022-01-18 15:59 [Bug libstdc++/104099] New: [12 Regression] basic_string(nullptr) constructor should not be present before C++23 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 15:59 ` [Bug libstdc++/104099] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-01-18 20:43 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 20:44 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-18 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104099
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely <redi@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe3ed885cda5ab920d361b694ee539242052022f
commit r12-6698-gfe3ed885cda5ab920d361b694ee539242052022f
Author: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Date: Tue Jan 18 16:26:45 2022 +0000
libstdc++: Limit new basic_string(nullptr_t) constructor to C++23
[PR104099]
The new deleted constructors added by P2166R1 are a breaking change,
making previously valid code ill-formed in C++23. As a result, they
should only be defined for C++23 and not for C++11 and up.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
PR libstdc++/104099
* include/bits/basic_string.h (basic_string(nullptr_t)): Only
define for C++23.
(operator=(nullptr_t)): Likewise.
* include/bits/cow_string.h: Likewise.
* include/std/string_view (basic_string_view(nullptr_t)):
Likewise.
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/cons/char/nullptr.cc: Adjust
expected error. Add examples that become ill-formed in C++23.
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/cons/char/nonnull.cc:
Adjust expected errors.
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/cons/wchar_t/nonnull.cc:
Likewise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/104099] [12 Regression] basic_string(nullptr) constructor should not be present before C++23
2022-01-18 15:59 [Bug libstdc++/104099] New: [12 Regression] basic_string(nullptr) constructor should not be present before C++23 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 15:59 ` [Bug libstdc++/104099] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 20:43 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-01-18 20:44 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-18 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104099
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-01-18 20:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-01-18 15:59 [Bug libstdc++/104099] New: [12 Regression] basic_string(nullptr) constructor should not be present before C++23 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 15:59 ` [Bug libstdc++/104099] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 20:43 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 20:44 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).