[Bug libstdc++/68880] [4.9 Regression][Bisected to r202992] std::operator< overload ignored when using std::lower_bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- For future reference, [4.9 Regression] means a regression in gcc 4.9 compared to previous versions. What you meant is [5/6 Regression], and you should have put 4.9.4 (or another version) in the "Known to work" field. It doesn't matter here though, because as stated above this is undefined behaviour not a regression (IMHO refusing to compile this code is a nice side effect of François's change).
[Bug libstdc++/68880] [4.9 Regression][Bisected to r202992] std::operator< overload ignored when using std::lower_bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880 --- Comment #5 from David Ward --- Jonathan, the behavior changed between 4.8 and 4.9. Testing with the 4.9 release showed the new behavior as well. I showed the output from the latest release to demonstrate that the behavior still exists and hadn't changed back since 4.9 (and also checked this with SVN trunk).
[Bug libstdc++/68880] [4.9 Regression][Bisected to r202992] std::operator< overload ignored when using std::lower_bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- I see, sorry, I read "The output below is from gcc 5.3.0, but I just checked that it is still broken in SVN trunk" to mean it was ok in 4.9 Then it should have been "[4.9/5/6 Regression]" (and all regressions need to have at least the "known to work" field set).
[Bug libstdc++/68880] [4.9 Regression][Bisected to r202992] std::operator< overload ignored when using std::lower_bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880 David Ward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED --- Comment #3 from David Ward --- You are correct; sorry for the noise. I got mixed up by the requirements for specializing std::less<> versus overloading operator<().
[Bug libstdc++/68880] [4.9 Regression][Bisected to r202992] std::operator< overload ignored when using std::lower_bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880 --- Comment #1 from François Dumont --- Not sure it is a regression. Of course before the patch the operator was called in namespace std so your operator was considered. Now we are using intermediate functor that are not in std namespace so your operator is hidden to those functors. I don't think the Standard is saying that we should consider namespace std in this context. So your best choice is simply to put your operator in namespace N rather than polluting the std one. I hope someone with higher C++ Standard knowledge will confirm.
[Bug libstdc++/68880] [4.9 Regression][Bisected to r202992] std::operator< overload ignored when using std::lower_bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Yes, this invokes undefined behavior. See: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/extending_std
