From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 64058 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2015 13:40:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 62066 invoked by uid 48); 25 Apr 2015 13:40:26 -0000 From: "redi at gcc dot 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 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.1.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg02174.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- (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).