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 5703E3858D28; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 21:07:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5703E3858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1679692058;
	bh=ztEL+ddPsHX750yOtdgECd8CWzHeBfpYZBqu8KG1eXk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xVoY3Z6U8Md9mojQeUz2l8KvtngsJJ3PrnaccodtxjMVx2yNkW/c0RWgI7hm0WD4B
	 YVYtLbGFuRviFpSSSy76WOdhrX8C37e+ScJXZj1kzRUcxhnxOXoRBFhiKcXjXzCz0J
	 NPxdU0ASvBQPivoglngv/P2kWZbyjTMPBrro+HtQ=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyBjKysvMTA5Mjc3XSBbMTMgUmVncmVzc2lvbl0gdHlwZV90?=
 =?UTF-8?B?cmFpdHM6MTQxNzozMDogZXJyb3I6IGludmFsaWQgdXNlIG9mIGluY29tcGxl?=
 =?UTF-8?B?dGUgdHlwZSDigJhjbGFzcyB2ODo6aW50ZXJuYWw6Oldhc21BcnJheeKAmQ==?=
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 21:07:38 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-bisection, needs-reduction, rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109277-4-6GxYPGlq83@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109277-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109277-4@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=3D109277

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes, looks undefined at first glance. We don't have to diagnose bad uses of
type traits (but we don't have to ignore them either, which means both gcc =
12
and gcc 13 are correct).

The question is whether the trait instantiation is supposed to happen here,=
 or
if it should be ok to name the incomplete type as long as its not used befo=
re
it's complete.=