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).