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 82ADB3858C66; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 08:39:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 82ADB3858C66
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1694594353;
	bh=QI/1vcshBNdG6kxkeypaldnHTZmSq+x+qr8N2Gx8n48=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=r2BJNNBL2CnSZoXEx5bkCktHJP6kcqkfi8OB5987IyTmCDWiNC8Oeq+nZdfv8+/ML
	 EmyIZxSe04ZGA7hvxbZtBotENiuZdvd3ohoHMHlbuzdblvhdXWkS8pxeAtmD7/pTAb
	 3hgC4wzpUs+gbDbCi9ptu92hESiGcZ7z83t2Ketw=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/111379] comparison between unequal pointers to void should
 be illegal during constant evaluation
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 08:39:06 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-111379-4-WyYkmu2K45@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111379-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111379-4@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=3D111379

Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jiang An from comment #1)
> There's (or will be) a new DR CWG2749 which tentatively ready now.
> https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2749.html
>=20
> It seems that the old resolution in CWG2526 was wrong, and the comparison
> should be constexpr-friendly.
>=20
> BTW I don't think there was anything specifying that "the comparison would
> have *undefined* behaviour" before CWG2526.

It is (or was) unspecified, not undefined.  And the standard explicitly
disallows "a relational operator where the result is unspecified" in
[expr.const].=