https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95242
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Another way to implement the __unspec constructor would be:
>
> consteval __unspec(int __n) { if (__n != 0) throw __n; }
>
> But I think I discussed this with Richard Smith in Prague and we realised
> there was a problem with it, but I might be misremembering.
Remember that we need to ensure that this __unspec constructor needs to be
noexcept (See bug 94565), so this function could only do a terminate-like
action.
