http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11393
--- Comment #28 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-26 02:13:23 UTC --- (In reply to comment #27) > And for similar reasons, it seems wrong to reject "b" with a permerror: The > code is accepted in c++98 as an extension, so it could be equally accepted in > c++11 as an extension, and warned by -pedantic. No need to force users to use > constexpr Why not? C++11 offers a portable alternative, there is no reason to use a deprecated extension when you can use constexpr. It's an extension in C++98 because there is no other way to write the code. Supporting the extension in C++11 is wrong, the portable, standard feature should be used instead. > Again, this is what clang does, which makes perfect sense to me. I guess clang supports it for GCC compatibility, not because it's a good idea that we should copy. > So, I still see two bugs. Your "c" example seems like a completely separate issue that should be a separate PR, I don't understand why it's being discussed here.
