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 4718F3858D32; Sun,  2 Oct 2022 20:34:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4718F3858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1664742849;
	bh=AUxicnOH7tJ/Cz9p6/dRgs9dJMEo18GbzCmq+xfrOpw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=p4k1FIDzv4jyA/0XaoHP2+oqM9jNL0XdoQl6rlsNv4rG3T0sZ/HIyMd9A1DMTRCf4
	 8dkWCN47XjprNqGHt5TddT7KhfdLtdecUvqBAB9XBYbOhLfqj4hfn85svwbaMgYChA
	 XJbNqI4tGVftytD/NDFGbq0awM3hl+0Iw6nGDp7g=
From: "jlame646 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107126] GCC accepts invalid out of class definition for
 destructor with C++17
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 20:34:09 +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: 12.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jlame646 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-107126-4-b71CocAWIf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107126-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107126-4@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=3D107126

--- Comment #3 from Jason Liam <jlame646 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> This is rejected with -std=3Dc++20 since
> r11-532-g4b38d56dbac6742b038551a36ec80200313123a1
> and the commit log states that it is intentional to apply it only for C++=
20
> mode because the DR wasn't against C++17.
> So why do you think otherwise?
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#2237
> also states:
> (Note that this resolution is a change for C++20, NOT a defect report
> against C++17 and earlier versions.)

Additionally note that i'm already aware of the cwg defect link that you
provided because i once used it here:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71972000/is-having-a-declaration-stackt=
-for-the-default-ctor-valid-inside-a-class-te/71981884#71981884

But that cwg defect does not apply here. This is a different gcc bug.=