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 56AD43858023; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 07:38:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 56AD43858023
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/104606] [10/11/12 Regression] comparison operator
 resolution with std::optional and -std=c++20
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 07:38:43 +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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.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: 10.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-104606-4-WcGSdBaPpJ@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
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: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 07:38:43 -0000

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

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I've confirmed that removing those 2 lines:
   template<typename _Tp, typename _Up>
-    requires (!__is_optional_v<_Up>)
-      && three_way_comparable_with<_Tp, _Up>
     constexpr compare_three_way_result_t<_Tp, _Up>
     operator<=3D>(const optional<_Tp>& __x, const _Up& __v)
     { return bool(__x) ? *__x <=3D> __v : strong_ordering::less; }
makes it accepted again.
That doesn't mean it doesn't need to be a FE bug, or it could not be a bug =
at
all, we need some C++ lawyer for that.=