https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I want to say b<e>::c::c is not a valid constexpr constructor. Because > b<e>::c's field h's constructor is not constexr. If that is the case, then > should be accepts invalid code. Or maybe I don't understand constexpr that well :). e::e() is definitely not a valid constexpr though :).
