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 F08F839450FB; Wed,  2 Sep 2020 15:25:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F08F839450FB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1599060302;
 bh=wU3Wio8ZafXMsTO+WA3J5z9cxYZyFkQJAAcXiIzsJEY=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=lOrw0VO47Dx6n1OAF4QnPk3M+0H4Uwsrb0KCLlABFXmNhDCKBTTyYvVOm+2WItV+3
 508+becuaEPKQoVOzXB72Wm1pKC+JbFricmqwpDa/X6S0imiVyOUYxxQoQ6m2iyaZ/
 9tAf2vhQSxbrb0FHs/Vgsore45BdBzWAjroX+Ru0=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/96851] operator< on std::array<T, N> does not work in
 constexpr, for sizeof(T) == 1, and N > 1
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:25:02 +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: 10.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-96851-4-rgKB3IWgwJ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96851-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96851-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:25:03 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96851

--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to milasudril from comment #4)
> Actually, I did not even try without the c++20 flag:

That's irrelevant. The bug happens when using c++20, so the bug report shou=
ld
include the options necessary to reproduce it. Whether you tried without c+=
+20
is irrelevant, what matters is that you *did* use c++20 when encountering t=
he
bug. So the bug report should say so.

> Thus I wouldn't expect it to work in C++17 or below. If it did, it could =
be
> considered a bug.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you don't need to say which options you used when
encountering the bug.

People trying to reproduce the bug should not need to guess how to reproduce
the bug. *I* know it needs C++20 and *you* know it needs C++20, but knowing=
 the
details of each C++ feature should not be necessary for other people to tri=
age
bug reports or try to reproduce them.=