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 A8C3F3858C39; Thu,  5 Oct 2023 19:27:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A8C3F3858C39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696534043;
	bh=WiUODo46b5fd/e/QlJ7AH934xgGPkkEQ0eIvpfMpK8U=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=x45Xnpmh4h2/vYH5fjrEhZa+TJOCHLNSXWYQk+Ev+lVE1zu5jkPZ0W2IfN5vVx95b
	 sf0zs/qiGGC9YkRs/GhkwIHXMsw/HWlF1rtj6dEkLn6c2HY25zRFy9GZTeO9jjdK/T
	 axptw8w0IUvANGncHvMClnX8s/sOIPywRod59C2k=
From: "knoepfel at fnal dot gov" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/111685] Segfault while sorting on array element
 address
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2023 19:27:22 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: knoepfel at fnal dot gov
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
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: resolution bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-111685-4-4x8CKOD2pX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111685-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111685-4@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=3D111685

Kyle Knoepfel <knoepfel at fnal dot gov> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #11 from Kyle Knoepfel <knoepfel at fnal dot gov> ---
@Xi Ruoyao's comment above re. strict weak ordering of values and not object
addresses is persuasive.  Thank you for your time and for clarifying my
misconceptions.=