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 F25BE3882118; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:11:03 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F25BE3882118
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1718705463;
	bh=dufybUJ9jWtH+7vgco3TIGveRVz2vedbE+drw7yEDn4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=KpbFU7LoX0iWBK4sBF/FvmCbsR580JdXg1Fd4MQu8jhYSwtYmJB+NN/OjoTl0Zr+N
	 5gz4QbkzNT6bJ1GDzckUnihsThRAxWCOsqDRPSjREqvMqTFwlIdUI4u94zWP74OT7Q
	 5cA7hMVSru+UvjRbeQh/bx2EgaVhGapoLumf4U3s=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/115514] Nonconforming reverse_iterator::operator->
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:11:03 +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: 15.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-115514-4-TFCHZsvAxc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-115514-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-115514-4@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=3D115514

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The constraint on reverse_iterator::operator->() checks it for an lvalue, w=
hich
suggests nobody considered (or cared) about annoying iterators that do
something different for lvalues and rvalues.

I'm inclined to consider the difference here to be an unintended consequenc=
e of
using of std::prev, and so a defect in the spec. I think this is not someth=
ing
we should care about.=