Thanks for the patch! Looks good to me for the most part.
On Fri, 8 Aug 2025, Yihan Wang wrote:
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/std/expected:
This ChangeLog entry should be filled in, e.g.
* include/std/expected (expected::expected(_Up&&)): Add
missing constraint as per LWG 4222.
> * testsuite/20_util/expected/lwg4222.cc: New test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yihan Wang <yronglin...@gmail.com>
> ---
> libstdc++-v3/include/std/expected | 1 +
> .../testsuite/20_util/expected/lwg4222.cc | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/expected/lwg4222.cc
>
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/expected
> b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/expected
> index 60f1565f15b..2b200ea0589 100644
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/expected
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/expected
> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ namespace __expected
> template<typename _Up = remove_cv_t<_Tp>>
> requires (!is_same_v<remove_cvref_t<_Up>, expected>)
> && (!is_same_v<remove_cvref_t<_Up>, in_place_t>)
> + && (!is_same_v<remove_cvref_t<_Up>, unexpect_t>)
Seems this line is overly indented causing it to not be aligned with the rest.
> && is_constructible_v<_Tp, _Up>
> && (!__expected::__is_unexpected<remove_cvref_t<_Up>>)
> && __expected::__not_constructing_bool_from_expected<_Tp, _Up>
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/expected/lwg4222.cc
> b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/expected/lwg4222.cc
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..a260cfef3dd
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/expected/lwg4222.cc
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++23 } }
> +
> +// LWG 4222. 'expected' constructor from a single value missing a constraint
> +
> +#include <expected>
> +#include <type_traits>
> +
> +struct T {
> + explicit T(auto) {}
> +};
> +struct E {
> + E(int) {}
> +};
> +
> +static_assert(!std::is_constructible_v<std::expected<T, E>,
> std::unexpect_t>);
> --
> 2.39.5
>
>
