public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/113529] New: Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity @ 2024-01-21 8:51 fchelnokov at gmail dot com 2024-01-21 9:03 ` [Bug c++/113529] Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity and `operator<=>` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: fchelnokov at gmail dot com @ 2024-01-21 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113529 Bug ID: 113529 Summary: Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fchelnokov at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- In this program #include <compare> struct A { auto operator <=>(const A&) const = default; bool operator <(const A&) const = default; }; struct B { auto operator <=>(const B&) const = default; }; struct C : A, B {}; template<typename T> concept Cmp = requires(T u, T v) { u < v; }; //auto cmp = C{} < C{}; //this correctly fails due to ambiguity static_assert( !Cmp<C> ); //but this evaluates wrongly in GCC C{} < C{} is correctly rejected as ambiguous, but for some reason `requires` in GCC returns that the objects can be compared. This program is accepted by Clang truck (to be v18). Online demo: https://godbolt.org/z/76zoYMd6h Explanation of ambiguity: https://stackoverflow.com/a/69245639/7325599 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/113529] Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity and `operator<=>` 2024-01-21 8:51 [Bug c++/113529] New: Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity fchelnokov at gmail dot com @ 2024-01-21 9:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-22 18:15 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-21 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113529 Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Incorrect result of |Incorrect result of |requires-expression in case |requires-expression in case |of function call ambiguity |of function call ambiguity | |and `operator<=>` Last reconfirmed| |2024-01-21 Keywords| |wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Confirmed. I just tried a normal function and not operator<=> and GCC does the correct thing. It is definitely `operator<=>` related because removing `operator<=>` and having an ambigous `operator<` does the correct thing too. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/113529] Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity and `operator<=>` 2024-01-21 8:51 [Bug c++/113529] New: Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity fchelnokov at gmail dot com 2024-01-21 9:03 ` [Bug c++/113529] Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity and `operator<=>` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-22 18:15 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-24 22:11 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-22 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113529 Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org CC| |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/113529] Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity and `operator<=>` 2024-01-21 8:51 [Bug c++/113529] New: Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity fchelnokov at gmail dot com 2024-01-21 9:03 ` [Bug c++/113529] Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity and `operator<=>` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-22 18:15 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-24 22:11 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-26 14:42 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-26 14:43 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-24 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113529 --- Comment #2 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka <ppalka@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fecb45a936d62ca24dd8b4985ea0555c28edefa8 commit r14-8402-gfecb45a936d62ca24dd8b4985ea0555c28edefa8 Author: Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com> Date: Wed Jan 24 17:11:09 2024 -0500 c++: ambiguous member lookup for rewritten cands [PR113529] Here we handle the operator expression u < v inconsistently: in a SFINAE context we accept it, and in a non-SFINAE context we reject it with error: request for member 'operator<=>' is ambiguous as per [class.member.lookup]/6. This inconsistency is ultimately because we neglect to propagate error_mark_node after recursing in add_operator_candidates, fixed like so. PR c++/113529 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * call.cc (add_operator_candidates): Propagate error_mark_node result after recursing to find rewritten candidates. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/cpp2a/spaceship-sfinae3.C: New test. Reviewed-by: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/113529] Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity and `operator<=>` 2024-01-21 8:51 [Bug c++/113529] New: Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity fchelnokov at gmail dot com ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2024-01-24 22:11 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-26 14:42 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-26 14:43 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-26 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113529 --- Comment #3 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka <ppalka@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:663d9e168bc1f2649721436f5188563eda9d04f0 commit r13-8255-g663d9e168bc1f2649721436f5188563eda9d04f0 Author: Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com> Date: Wed Jan 24 17:11:09 2024 -0500 c++: ambiguous member lookup for rewritten cands [PR113529] Here we handle the operator expression u < v inconsistently: in a SFINAE context we accept it, and in a non-SFINAE context we reject it with error: request for member 'operator<=>' is ambiguous as per [class.member.lookup]/6. This inconsistency is ultimately because we neglect to propagate error_mark_node after recursing in add_operator_candidates, fixed like so. PR c++/113529 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * call.cc (add_operator_candidates): Propagate error_mark_node result after recursing to find rewritten candidates. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/cpp2a/spaceship-sfinae3.C: New test. Reviewed-by: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> (cherry picked from commit fecb45a936d62ca24dd8b4985ea0555c28edefa8) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/113529] Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity and `operator<=>` 2024-01-21 8:51 [Bug c++/113529] New: Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity fchelnokov at gmail dot com ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2024-01-26 14:42 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-26 14:43 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-26 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113529 Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|--- |13.3 Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Fixed for GCC 13.3 / 14. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-01-26 14:43 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2024-01-21 8:51 [Bug c++/113529] New: Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity fchelnokov at gmail dot com 2024-01-21 9:03 ` [Bug c++/113529] Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of function call ambiguity and `operator<=>` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-22 18:15 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-24 22:11 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-26 14:42 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-26 14:43 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).