https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Aug 16 20:40:36 2019
New Revision: 274587
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274587&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85827
g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-if29.C: New test.
Added:
trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz ---
But macros are different. They remove the code before the C++ parser sees it
(at least as-if). One great improvement of constexpr-if over macros is that all
the other branches are parsed and their syntax che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
I think that's going to be hard. The same issue always existed with macros. The
whole point of "if constexpr" is not to look at the other branches, as they may
not even compile. Sure, some minimal "safe" attemp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz ---
Same issue for -Wunused-variable
