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.

  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: link
Be 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).