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 96A423858C42; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 12:04:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 96A423858C42
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700654696;
	bh=rdg3rU6K++ZlrruDbkjLGGbpXZlxtbcTcgpm0gJ6egQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Si0ls3eRJhSH6zmf9nkkkk7fjVk4FDTkNcRZeLjz2A7z+Kz7XNFuQTFeVHsxK/WTa
	 lXfNYJhUS0dMNbcJvTXBJa8yW2CzunnSHcHW4WFZQHUiDRXS61MmJPYSF2SApxdARJ
	 +4LH4nT0RiDq9uoUO260+3k2P/Nscc4VcyVJDKOE=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/112642] ranges::fold_left tries to access inactive union
 member of string in constant expression
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 12:04:56 +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: 13.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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-112642-4-CjZI1iNOLr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112642-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112642-4@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=3D112642

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Miro Palmu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > The examples in comment 4 do compile using libstdc++ on clang, if you u=
se
> > libstdc++ headers from after sept 29 (for trunk) or oct 21 (for gcc-13).
>=20
> I was testing this on compiler explorer on clang 17.0.1 and it used
> gcc-13.2.0 libstdc++.

Which is expected to fail, because 13.2.0 was released before Oct 21.

> Also tried it locally with clang 16.0.6 with
> gcc-13.2.1 libstdc++

Which gcc-13.2.1 though? That's a snapshot that could date from any time in=
 the
past four months. If I use gcc version 13.2.1 20231025 then clang compiles =
it.

Anyway, the original GCC error is the same as PR 112642 which was apparently
reduced to PR 111284, which does seem relevant.=