public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "gcc@nicholas-schwab.de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/98842] optional's spaceship operations generates wrong code when operator== is not present
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:56:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-98842-4-lKcaqhv9nf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-98842-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98842
gcc@nicholas-schwab.de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gcc@nicholas-schwab.de
--- Comment #1 from gcc@nicholas-schwab.de ---
Three problem lies in the concept three_way_comparable_with. It uses
__detail::__weakly_eq_cmp_with that requires u == t. Due to paper P1185
operator== will not lookup operator<=>. Therefore having only operator<=>
defined does not suffice to fulfill __detail::__weakly_eq_cmp. Hence the first
of these two templates is SFINAE'D out and the second is taken.
template<typename _Tp, three_way_comparable_with<_Tp> _Up>
constexpr compare_three_way_result_t<_Tp, _Up>
operator<=>(const optional<_Tp>& __x, const optional<_Up>& __y)
template<typename _Tp, typename _Up>
constexpr compare_three_way_result_t<_Tp, _Up>
operator<=>(const optional<_Tp>& __x, const _Up& __v)
The second will however compare false whenever the left hand side is empty.
The standard requires that three_way_comparable_with also requires
weakly_equality_comparable. Hence the implementation of this concept is
correct. However this might be a defect in the standard.
Note that the standard also wants three_way_comparable_with<_Tp> for the second
template (http://eel.is/c++draft/optional#comp.with.t-25). So the second
template above is non-confirming. But it seems to me that a comparison between
two optionals then is always ambiguous, so this should be a defect.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-26 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-26 18:09 [Bug libstdc++/98842] New: " nunoplopes at sapo dot pt
2021-01-26 18:56 ` gcc@nicholas-schwab.de [this message]
2021-01-26 21:45 ` [Bug libstdc++/98842] " gcc@nicholas-schwab.de
2021-01-26 22:55 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-07 14:47 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-11 22:25 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-22 15:34 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-22 15:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-28 11:24 ` redi 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-98842-4-lKcaqhv9nf@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).