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 0F55B3858D35; Fri,  5 May 2023 19:00:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0F55B3858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683313218;
	bh=AKsITUH4QlKkWJDhwfldj+pWBTyUACYau2UHL+9YoBY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=LweqVLb+3AYWmm5sE6OU5kBM87v7V3VILcEEp+DcMQti6rC7+0U8lwLKuFI1cAYVf
	 XqKeuT3BQwklpVZ8SqtXmm5NtOLKkhzFPJtEX36oxN2NR3g6U6UVpt7KwNnFtiai0x
	 bI5Wkl/KzG67yIW5SeBmc1id50G93vU0AzaK5Dv4=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109751] boost iterator_interface fails concept check
 starting in gcc-13
Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 19:00:17 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109751-4-8dsqRT3dao@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109751-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109751-4@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=3D109751

--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Luke Dalessandro from comment #8)
>=20
> Right.
>=20
> I was sort of surprised that that boost code could get away with a requir=
es
> on any of those CRTP functions where it uses the CRTP "D" type, but I tes=
ted
> gcc-12 and all the clangs, and nvc++, and msvc 19, and gcc-13 was the only
> one reporting problems here, so I went with consensus.

Note I could be wrong too. Which is why I kept it open until someone else w=
ho
is more familar with the C++ standard makes a judgement.=