public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/104111] Concept evaluation depends on context where it was first checked
Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 17:58:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-104111-4-SkhbYdTgcK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-104111-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104111

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |67491

--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> > because concept-id evaluation shall not depend on the context.
> 
> One consequence of making this change to concept-id evaluation would be that
> for:
> 
>   template<class T> void f() requires (!C<T>);
> 
> during constraint checking for say f<int>(), we no longer evaluate C<int>
> (as part of evaluation of the atomic constraint !C<T>) in the access context
> of f, which seems surprising to me.
> 
> CC'ing Jason for guidance.

This issue was discussed on the CWG mailing list back in 2018, but seems never
to have made it to the issues list.  There was general agreement at the time
that access should be checked in the lexical context of the atomic constraint,
as with other expressions; this does indeed have the consequence that you
mention.  Which means that since we don't have class-scope concepts, any
constraints that need to depend on access control need to be written directly
in the requires-clause rather than through a concept.  Or just give up on
trying to express constraints that depend on access.

An alternative fix for this bug would be to include the evaluation context in
the satisfaction cache.


Referenced Bugs:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
[Bug 67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-05-27 17:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-19  8:21 [Bug c++/104111] New: " fchelnokov at gmail dot com
2022-01-19  8:22 ` [Bug c++/104111] " fchelnokov at gmail dot com
2022-01-19  8:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-19 14:19 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-21 14:27 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-21  7:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27 17:58 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-05-27 22:02 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-31 19:29 ` [Bug c++/104111] [DR2589] " jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-29 10:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-22 17:11 ` steve+gcc at tecwec dot eu
2024-02-22 22:50 ` webrown.cpp at gmail dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-104111-4-SkhbYdTgcK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).