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 41D2A385E44F; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:58:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 41D2A385E44F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711573104;
	bh=GoPxdFZ53NC0Rs8HR1ZDCfmdMNvs1v2hvCaWWsqzT64=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=IWFgdIjaG59SROFc5uPI7ATLwPU1/mIBZBDUDtBvRB4KL9FLdEXitD18uU4GjCAE0
	 jkz9e2X4ZpMFA37lWole+N8NoZAgVQg1khbQydoPcHneO0w65FNGUbRAdYHnersU7t
	 T1orDM2EeMwsxeMofkcbsY/VwJ8cz2k5e/Gq875c=
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 20:58:22 +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: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-104606-4-e41NpSylrC@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

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2024-03-27
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I am suspecting a front-end change caused this.
> clang accepts the same code with libstdc++ which is another reason why I
> think it might be a front-end issue.

And clang accepts the example when using libc++, which also implements LWG
3566. So I don't think the LWG 3566 change itself is the problem.=