https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Sebastian "spaetz" Spaeth from comment #5) > I fully understand that nobody wants to invest time into fixing this. What > would be nice though, is if this were really just a missed optimization and > not rejecting to compile valid code. It's not that no-one wants to fix the bug, it's just that no-one wants it fixed enough to hire someone to do it .. and it's too much work for "spare time hacking". While ibm-128 is being phased out in favour of ieee754 - it is still used on a number of systems that are current and will be for a few more GCC releases. Given the increase in use of constexpr, it's likely to become more common to see issues. In the past, I worked around the problem by making conditional non-constexpr code (so _not_ ignoring constexpr, but having a #ifdef'd alternate path.)
