https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Paul Keir from comment #8)
> I wonder if a small part of this bug still remains.
You're right, there's still something bad. I've opened bug 113360 for it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #8 from Paul Keir ---
I wonder if a small part of this bug still remains. The code below should
#include , but as it doesn't, we get an error message. The
message now gives all the right information but, with -std=c++23 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a22eeaca5ce753a0a3c22013ee3ecde04c71c2f4
commit r14-4659-ga22eeaca5ce753a0a3c22013ee3ecde04c71c2f4
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Paul Keir from comment #4)
> I believe P2448R2 would only allow the code, without the static_assert.
> Explicitly calling `test()`, `Jam::Jam()` and then `Jam::ft()` here would
> mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #4 from Paul Keir ---
I believe P2448R2 would only allow the code, without the static_assert.
Explicitly calling `test()`, `Jam::Jam()` and then `Jam::ft()` here would mean
evaluating a non-constexpr function (i.e. `ft`). ft is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #2 from Paul Keir ---
Thanks. The `-Winvalid-constexpr` mentioned there is a helpful workaround.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc