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 A164E385457E; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:05:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A164E385457E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1669197937;
	bh=vSnHEWRA1lhTgXEnKgAJyz1BqrA+XdFMkvyC3tV0kPk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=su6uReUhpZVa+HPjcosehFuSCu14oL3tdrt4M3H2nEDv3BIv9ETULckvRssE4E7v0
	 VE2D1Nt1Neh3d37wBorM5Z3DstLZv+DIC65thVGrCX+V8lswov8QHcSZpe9uKY9pXP
	 3/T8Mxw7oQL74J4KbLnlbiLAAoZeMAf8YJjkD420=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/107814] [13 regression]
 experimental/filesystem/iterators/error_reporting.cc FAILs
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:05:14 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107814-4-FaHbvLmJTK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107814-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107814-4@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=3D107814

--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot U=
ni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Are you sure this is a regression? Isn't it the same case as PR104731, bu=
t that
> was only fixed for 27_io/filesystem/iterators/error_reporting.cc and not
> experimental/filesystem/iterators/error_reporting.cc ?

I'd only checked the sparc and x86 results for the current gcc-12 branch
where the test PASSes on both.  However, the fact that the test on trunk
FAILs on x86, but PASSes on sparc seems to show that the results are
pretty unreliable.

So yea, very much looks like PR104731.=