https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89855
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- That's one possible reading, but I don't think the text you quote is precise enough to say that reading is definitely correct or not. If that is what it says, it might be unintentional. That paragraph is hardly a paragon of precision. The current wording was added by https://wg21.link/lwg456 to address the problem that the original wording didn't reflect reality and was effectively unimplementable for some vendors. I see nothing in 456 that implies your reading was intended (and nothing impying it wasn't). It doesn't really make any difference anyway, since I already plan to change libstdc++ to resolve the original problem described above.
