https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess that particular spot could be changed with:
--- gcc/cp/typeck2.c2020-09-12 13:36:42.500499341 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/typeck2.c2020-11-03 10:44:10.257021110 +0100
@@ -935,9 +935,11 @@ store_init_value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681
--- Comment #5 from Luke Dalessandro ---
The more I think about this the more it bothers me.
I recognize that it might be very difficult to implement in gcc's
infrastructure, but I think the design decision that "if it _can_ be constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681
--- Comment #4 from Luke Dalessandro ---
There are other occurrences of `a` that _are_ in `constexpr` context, it is
used in both contexts within the application thus the keyword is necessary.
This report came from a testcase reduction, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Don't mark it constexpr. Or, if it has any arguments, don't call it with
constant arguments, but call it with non-constant ones.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681
--- Comment #2 from Luke Dalessandro ---
Okay, how would one constrain such inlining in order to retain a symbol and
stack frame for debugging purposes?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
