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 308E23858D32; Thu,  7 Jul 2022 15:53:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 308E23858D32
From: "nimrodcowboy at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/106223] difference in behaviour between no optimization and
 -O for specialization of std::forward
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 15:53:04 +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: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: nimrodcowboy at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
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-106223-4-7y2CF0HGoD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106223-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106223-4@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: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 15:53:04 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106223

--- Comment #7 from Nimrod <nimrodcowboy at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> That paragraph has nothing to do with your case, you are adding a
> specialization, not an explicit instantiation.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong paragraph. It should be
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4659/namespace.std#2
"A program may add a template specialization for any standard library templ=
ate
to namespace std only if the declaration depends on a user-defined type and=
 the
specialization meets the standard library requirements for the original
template and is not explicitly prohibited"

> If the standard allows this nonsense then it needs to be fixed. std::move
> and std::forward are effectively built-in language primitives, and you
> should not be messing with them.

Basically agreed and I think it's fixed in C++20. So I'm talking about C++17
things.=