public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "andysem at mail dot ru" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/106808] std::string_view range concept requirement causes compile error with Boost.Filesystem Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 15:24:54 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-106808-4-3gorzFe249@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-106808-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106808 --- Comment #8 from andysem at mail dot ru --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > (In reply to andysem from comment #6) > > So do you think this is a problem in Boost.Filesystem? > > I don't know yet, I can't reproduce it with the Boost in Fedora 36, and I > haven't looked further. I have added a workaround to the current Boost.Filesystem develop and master, and Boost 1.80 (the latest official release) didn't support std::string_view, so is not affected either. In order to reproduce you would need the revision I posted in the original problem description. > > I would say this is a regression in string_view as the code is valid in > > pre-C++23, and I would expect it to stay valid in C++23 onwards. > > That range constructor is explicit in the C++23 draft now, but that change > hasn't been backordered to GCC 12 yet, and apparently doesn't change > anything if you still see this in trunk. > > > Shouldn't > > the range constructor be simply disabled when fs::path::iterator is not > > defined? > > Do you want ODR violations? Because that's how you get ODR violations. I understand this, but my point is that this is a breaking change, apparently even with the constructor being marked explicit, and it breaks in a rather surprising way. Also, apparently MSVC is able to not break somehow as it doesn't have this issue. So maybe there is a solution that does not introduce ODR violations and yet still works. I think it would be preferable to fix std::string_view rather than all its uses like in std/Boost.Filesystem.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-02 15:24 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-09-01 20:45 [Bug libstdc++/106808] New: " andysem at mail dot ru 2022-09-01 20:50 ` [Bug libstdc++/106808] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-01 20:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-01 20:56 ` andysem at mail dot ru 2022-09-01 21:04 ` andysem at mail dot ru 2022-09-01 22:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-01 22:17 ` andysem at mail dot ru 2022-09-02 10:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-02 15:24 ` andysem at mail dot ru [this message] 2022-09-02 15:54 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-02 16:00 ` andysem at mail dot ru 2022-09-02 16:06 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-02 16:07 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-02 16:08 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-05 10:12 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-106808-4-3gorzFe249@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).