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 E9C7C3858D20; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:11:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E9C7C3858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711581092;
	bh=tB7tznkR6HkQCNApGtKOnGEtCfcIAABU7mlk53oP4bk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=VeIrmZqV9qAGIKedFovxd3RjVUQ0ZTgVgt/aI18vayYIVsSX07PHQPwdMw2vlP2io
	 7PPyBotpkAQXKlIGRyDU+/QSpmpi92VClOws0dTuniIICkWMueyxXrtlGd3tRvsh5D
	 jeflAd9IlAKCF56sRPkIa5eE5jpM9/jpCrEhTgl8=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/104606] [11/12/13/14 Regression] comparison operator
 resolution with std::optional and -std=c++20
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:11:31 +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: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-104606-4-C9HJBRWAh8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104606-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104606-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104606

--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > Just wild guess, perhaps the PR98842 changes between 11.1 and 11.2?
>=20
> That would mean it is a bug in GCC 10.4 also :(.

It's not, even though 10.4 has the library change. Compiling the test case =
with
10.4 works. But preprocessing with 10.4 and then compiling with 11.1 fails,
confirming a front end change is to blame.

Bisection shows it started to error with r11-2774

c++: Check satisfaction before non-dep convs. [CWG2369]

It's very hard to use concepts to protect a template from hard errors due to
unwanted instantiation if constraints aren't checked until after doing all
substitution and checking of non-dependent conversions.

It was pretty straightforward to insert the satisfaction check into the
logic, but I needed to make the 3-parameter version of
satisfy_declaration_constraints call push_tinst_level like the 2-parameter
version already does.  For simplicity, I also made it add any needed outer
template arguments from the TEMPLATE_DECL to the args.

The testsuite changes are mostly because this change causes unsatisfaction
to cause deduction to fail rather than reject the candidate later in
overload resolution.

gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

DR 2369
* cp-tree.h (push_tinst_level, push_tinst_level_loc): Declare.
* constraint.cc (satisfy_declaration_constraints):
Use add_outermost_template_args and push_tinst_level.
* pt.c (add_outermost_template_args): Handle getting
a TEMPLATE_DECL as the first argument.
(push_tinst_level, push_tinst_level_loc): No longer static.
(fn_type_unification): Check satisfaction before non-dependent
conversions.=