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 C91C03858D39; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 13:34:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C91C03858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677591249;
	bh=EfbS4KFrCYoTAhKezvg/dBHfXD4YeiWYwCWk8p8WEG0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=KtWk0sXPuDh3ccX4iFIDLa61m2GYHqkCdxzqxDc5ZHWT07L+MhJ+idnXKJNJ0mKZ9
	 PtU1vxO46wPqERh/twNtQenzZyMtzgVzusP0FEwtSNtEK7F5hfHURZA4PGAGkUi21T
	 MUbDo5PCZ1raNpu2Ehw/1NMo3OBs1NH/L4nKYUgE=
From: "chrisfriedt at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/108965] g++: unable to parse c11 _Generics
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 13:34:09 +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: 11.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: chrisfriedt at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108965-4-Kf8yfn2LWf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108965-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108965-4@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=3D108965

--- Comment #11 from Christopher Friedt <chrisfriedt at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Christopher Friedt from comment #8)
> > My code is clearly valid C++ according to g++ :-)
>
> Maybe you mean clang++ but even then, no it's not:

I was talking about the code at the linked PR. It's valid C++11 according to
g++ (and clang++).

I was not talking about the cppreference.com example (which is not my code,
which is what you seem to be referencing as my code).

I did not compile the cppreference.com code with -pedantic, but if you feel=
 you
need to in order to illustrate that you are right here, by all means.

I can also run a command that illustrates my point as well. See?

$ clang++ -std=3Dc++11 -o /tmp/main /tmp/main.cpp
$ echo $?
0

So really, if you're trying to tell me that my observations did not actually
occur, that is, by definition, gaslighting.

> I commented explaining that it's not in the C++ standard, and followed up
> in the github issue where the real bug is.

The comments you made on the github pr do not highlight "where the real bug=
 is"
because the code is not buggy - it produces the desired results.=20

> "I didn't have to do any of that, and I certainly won't bother doing so a=
gain"

Works for me!=