public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/65861] libstdc++ is silently generating wrong code when its std::search is given an input iterator
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:40:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-65861-4-otRlIefljN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-65861-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #7)
> Is there e reason for gcc not to detect such wrong code issues by default?

Read the docs, the concept checks only enforce C++03 requirements, so turning
them on by default would erroneously reject valid C++11 programs that rely on
the relaxed 

> Perhaps gcc 6 should finally default to --enable-concept-checks.

Definitely not.

The reason I haven't just closed this as INVALID is that in C++11 mode we could
add unconditional static assertions, but someone needs to do the work of adding
those assertions, and making sure they test the right concepts (which may
differ from the existing C++03 checks).


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-04-25 13:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-23 14:43 [Bug libstdc++/65861] New: " howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com
2015-04-23 15:01 ` [Bug libstdc++/65861] " glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-23 15:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-23 15:14 ` howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com
2015-04-23 15:16 ` howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com
2015-04-23 15:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-23 15:27 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-25 10:48 ` howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com
2015-04-25 13:40 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2015-05-02 10:12 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-06  5:19 ` [Bug c++/65861] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-06 10:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-06 14:06 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-06 22:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-09  0:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-65861-4-otRlIefljN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
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).