https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #61 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #60) > There's no wiggle room, we're definitely non-conforming. > > Maybe the changes could be limited to -std=gnu++NN modes only, although > Paolo argued strongly against that in this bug report. > > It doesn't seem to be causing any issues for anybody though, so I'm not very > motivated to "fix" our non-conformance by removing features (and probably > breaking somebody's code). I'd say we should (but perhaps for GCC11 only) remove those constexpr markings and users that really need constexpr behavior will just need to use __builtin_sinh etc. instead which ought to be constexpr because it is a builtin.
