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 6CF293858D32; Sun,  4 Sep 2022 17:43:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6CF293858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1662313428;
	bh=vrvRgvKJ5acii5esDVaNXrhnRluSBRHb3jNn2ujbVkI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=bIQbnH3vm/nR10LI+QnpN8E8RB/3N2+DwCHULd6HYBlJvgKILMdjwCgwe+DNifTZc
	 CtEuvqskBkcasC9t6r2gLI/ocnJrS1EdfeRD4AvgEoAvf7PbdY/daKfZJpNMYhMlKy
	 008I6NnQ9Lbns5ScHoCxsBlIa0orb7no04nP8xgg=
From: "markmigm at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/106825] header unit <memory> based
 std::shared_ptr<...>(...) use gets: undefined reference to
 `std::_Sp_counted_base<(__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2>::_M_release()', aarch64
 example
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2022 17:43:48 +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: 12.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: markmigm at gmail dot com
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-106825-4-rKz8QHm2Is@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106825-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106825-4@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=3D106825

--- Comment #3 from Mark Millard <markmigm at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Mark Millard from comment #2)
. . .
> export module module_template_specialization_intf;
>=20
> export template<int c> int test();
> export template<>      int test<0>() { return -1; };
> export template<>      int test<1>() { return -2; };
. . .

In case it is unclear: libstdc++ is using such specializations
that lead to the libstdc++ tied instances of such failures that
was the basis for my original submittal.

Technically libstdc++ could avoid such specializations as an
implementation technique and avoid the problem for code using
libstdc++ .

If that happened, the tiny test would still not be covered and
would become a separate issue.

I'll also report that the tiny test also fails for clang++15
(from FreeBSD's devel/llvm15 port) but libc++ does not have
the problem for the original example I submitted here. So,
apparently, libc++ avoids use of template specializations
in its implementation of the specific original example.=