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 7CC253858401; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:35:47 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7CC253858401
From: "ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/105200] user-defined operator <=> for enumerated types is
 ignored
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:35:47 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ppalka 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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105200-4-WOeGjfzzky@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105200-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105200-4@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: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:35:47 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105200

--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> If one defines instead say bool operator<(const foo, const foo);
> then the built-in candidate isn't considered because of
> https://eel.is/c++draft/over.match.oper#3.3
> But for the user operator<=3D> vs. built-in operator<, they don't have the
> same operator name, so the built-in operator< is in the candidate set.

I came to the same conclusion but for a different reason.  According to p3.=
3.4
only a "non-member candidate" can prevent a built-in candidate from being
considered.  And according to p3.2 and p3.4, a user operator<=3D> is a "rew=
ritten
candidate" not a "non-member candidate", and therefore a user operator<=3D>=
 can't
prevent a built-in candidate from being considered (even if their
parameter-type-lists are the same).=