[Bug libstdc++/96269] optional comparison with nullopt fails

2020-11-05 Thread ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269 --- Comment #9 from Ville Voutilainen --- Ha, well spotted. In general, in a spaceship world, you do want to provide comparisons symmetrically and const-correctly, and that also works in the pre-spaceship world, thus: #include struct X { tem

[Bug libstdc++/96269] optional comparison with nullopt fails

2020-11-05 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-11-05 Keywords|

[Bug libstdc++/96269] optional comparison with nullopt fails

2020-11-05 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to sshannin from comment #6) > I guess to rephrase, should there also be a specialized spaceship overload > for the (nullopt_t, optional) direction to complement the (optional, > nullopt) one? No

[Bug libstdc++/96269] optional comparison with nullopt fails

2020-11-05 Thread sshannin at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269 --- Comment #6 from sshannin at gmail dot com --- Thanks to you both for your analysis. As I said, I wasn't sure if it was an issue, so I'm certainly willing to accept that it's not. The one point I wanted to emphasize though just to make sure we

[Bug libstdc++/96269] optional comparison with nullopt fails

2020-11-05 Thread ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269 --- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen --- Oh, and if you define a spaceship operator for your type, then things work again, with or without FLIP.

[Bug libstdc++/96269] optional comparison with nullopt fails

2020-11-05 Thread ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com

[Bug libstdc++/96269] optional comparison with nullopt fails

2020-11-05 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- I don't think this is a bug in std::optional, I think it's how C++20 works.

[Bug libstdc++/96269] optional comparison with nullopt fails

2020-07-21 Thread sshannin at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269 --- Comment #2 from sshannin at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > Your operator== should be const-qualified. I don't disagree. I can also fully remove the operator== and it compiles as well (why should the presence

[Bug libstdc++/96269] optional comparison with nullopt fails

2020-07-21 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Your operator== should be const-qualified.