https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96851
--- 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 should 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 the 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 triage bug reports or try to reproduce them.
