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 3C96A3858D37; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:22:36 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3C96A3858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1674321756;
	bh=/kTUkL4Y5CTnNmCYFgvKX4qK+vo6uN/0p0516rS/dA8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=gtwaxj5R/6HPifs/yPLR+BqjTRx/Sbh9fLLqG1hM/ZtoPqbMHUCTS11YYXtnwRwx6
	 Zec5oryVS20YIe5e2Al39qE085e3lpT3x98TE0+QEOjm/sVT2iq2aLF7SL4/qtL6ur
	 K7xubWhlEfV24MiZCtP1P0fDxMEDcXV9huT5kkYs=
From: "StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/108218] [12/13 Regression] Constant arguments in the new
 expression is not checked in unevaluated operand since
 r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:22:34 +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: 12.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid, rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108218-4-rc9ZLp8f89@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108218-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108218-4@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=3D108218

--- Comment #11 from Steven Sun <StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#2392
>=20
> "potentially-evaluated".

Oh, I realized that,

According to the DR 2392 accepted as a DR at the November, 2022 meeting:

https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2392.html

We should not evaluate that expression in the first dimension of `new` anym=
ore.
So this is not a bug.

This also applys for expressions appearing in requirement-seq of
requires-expressions.

So surprising! (Correct me if I am wrong)=