https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035
--- Comment #2 from Judy Ward <Judy.Ward at intel dot com> --- Yes I have a beta copy of EDG 4.11 which has relaxed constexpr and they give an error. Unfortunately some Boost code (I think inadvertently) relies on not giving a diagnostic. Yes I see your point that this is really a QOI issue but GNU does seem inconsistent and EDG will have to emulate that inconsistency. Thanks Judy > On May 9, 2016, at 7:38 PM, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org > <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035 > > Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Keywords| |accepts-invalid > Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW > Last reconfirmed| |2016-05-09 > CC| |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org > Ever confirmed|0 |1 > Known to fail| |4.9.3, 5.3.0, 6.1.0 > Severity|normal |enhancement > > --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Hi Judy! > > I'll take a stab at this -- let me know if I missed something. I agree that > similarly to the non-template case, (in the absence of a valid explicit > specialization) diagnosing the constexpr function template below would be > useful, even though in p5 and p6 of [dcl.constexpr], the standard leaves both > cases as a matter of QoI: > > -6- If the instantiated template specialization of a constexpr function > template o member function of a class template would fail to satisfy the > requirements for a constexpr function or constexpr constructor, that > specialization is still a constexpr function or constexpr constructor, even > though a call to such a function cannot appear in a constant expression. If > no > specialization of the template would satisfy the requirements for a constexpr > function or constexpr constructor when considered as a non-template function > or > constructor, the template is ill-formed; no diagnostic required. > > (I read the last sentence as referring to implicit specializations of the > template definition, not explicit ones with valid definitions.) > > Thus, I'm inclined to view this bug not as a defect but an enhancement > request. > Let me know if you disagree. > > Clang is more strict than GCC here by issuing the optional diagnostic. > > My copy of EDG (version 4.10) rejects the program because it doesn't fully > implement the C++ 14 rules: a) it doesn't recognize void as a literal type, > and > b) it doesn't allow statements in constexpr functions. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug.
