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 BF59E3858424; Fri,  5 Apr 2024 13:33:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BF59E3858424
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712324015;
	bh=EemK1Sr3mEvwSxpw3AIP30bgUBxpQZh/bJlgrsu18OU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=tRdnKtY2rXAcN9s2NnHVjU5RG92LDJLpou2MtfHHpcOYNzjVOG2CKYCZ/MzPEKiFM
	 NSbCjeJVftwnOg8jIpFD2nIkwVDFZyjsX5QO7oBpFzZKKajptpXl5jtyoopaeaE3DZ
	 fQ0/c3WBfSMz0m3Nq921j1n6CuUjL7XseYK0ICIc=
From: "ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/114600] [14 Regression] [modules] redefinition errors when
 using certain std headers in GMF
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 13:33:34 +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: ice-on-valid-code, rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ppalka 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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114600-4-M2V6b9CIUD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114600-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114600-4@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=3D114600

--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Nathaniel Shead from comment #4)
> In general we don't yet implement merging of textual redefinitions; I gue=
ss
> this ultimately falls under that, but I'm not sure we have a dedicated bug
> report for that yet? Maybe PR99000.
Makes sense.

> I'm not yet sure exactly why my patch caused this to start failing though;
> it sounds like it's exporting some using-decls even though they aren't
> directly exported, which I suppose is still a bug in its own right.
Hmm, should the check added to add_binding_entity
  flags & (WMB_Using | WMB_Export)
instead be
  (flags & WMB_Using) && (flags & WMB_Export)
?=