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 E5A2F3858D3C; Tue, 12 Sep 2023 01:20:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E5A2F3858D3C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1694481602;
	bh=HQwghZkHau6wF0lK48tWLlCc4ZjdiH8vCqB/163+gCs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=B2mV7hIu/mlsBezgXiQCjXVFypecd1pE/XfUAEMWN5Uih/KrB1Hq6PhriqqCXzKKV
	 ijZWB7FG1YskpzprmBW5Gz4FpIfe7hTRFRn2n9hsgAVwFTi1boMg5aUFH9eSLcJw13
	 91bbFYyABI4ZVcaGLCDNj+vCNE+28Gesuumyfhys=
From: "de34 at live dot cn" <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: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 01:20:02 +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: de34 at live dot cn
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-gBHnz0u4vd@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

Jiang An <de34 at live dot cn> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |de34 at live dot cn

--- Comment #1 from Jiang An <de34 at live dot cn> ---
There's (or will be) a new DR CWG2749 which tentatively ready now.
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2749.html

It seems that the old resolution in CWG2526 was wrong, and the comparison
should be constexpr-friendly.

BTW I don't think there was anything specifying that "the comparison would =
have
*undefined* behaviour" before CWG2526.=