https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > So, is the [class.dtor]/9 note just incorrect and should be removed, or > clarified somehow? I believe it shouldn't affect what actually is a literal > type or not, because the constructor of a class without virtual bases which > has a non-static data member that has virtual bases can't be constexpr either. I think a virtual base just shouldn't make the destructor non-constexpr, which would make the note correct. I've emailed CWG to that effect.
