[Bug libstdc++/69287] libstdc++-v3/include/debug/functions.h:297: bad comparison ?

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287

--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
>__glibcxx_assert(__first == __last || !(*__first < *__last));

It wouldn't make much sense to assert that the inputs to a generic sort
algorithm are not already sorted, would it :)

[Bug libstdc++/69287] libstdc++-v3/include/debug/functions.h:297: bad comparison ?

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287

Jonathan Wakely  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |INVALID

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
Not a bug.

[Bug libstdc++/69287] libstdc++-v3/include/debug/functions.h:297: bad comparison ?

[rs2740 at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287

TC  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com

--- Comment #1 from TC  ---
This code is correct as written, as explained by the comment right above:

  // Verify that the < operator for elements in the sequence is a
  // StrictWeakOrdering by checking that it is irreflexive.