https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113763
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > > Jon, what about Iain's question whether it isn't a bug we use constexpr on > > the ctor even in C++11 mode? > > Do we treat such papers as DRs on the library side? > > No, but it looks like we did at some point in the past (see also the > constexpr <cmath> stuff, PR 102916 et al). > > I'm not very motivated to replace those constexpr with _GLIBCXX14_CONSTEXPR > on pair, tuple and initializer_list, but for correctness we should do it. presumably, that still allows the constexpr with gnu++11? (so we'd not be losing that much, but we'd catch cases like this one earlier)
