On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 08:52:17AM +0000, Simon Martin wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2025, at 12:10, Simon Martin wrote:
>
> > While testing an unrelated C++ patch with "make check-c++-all", I
> > noticed that r15-6760-g38a13ea4117b96 added a test case that fails
> > with
> > -fimplicit-constexpr.
> >
> > The problem is that this test unconditionally expects an error stating
> > that a non-constexpr function is called, but that function is
> > auto-magically constexpr'd under -fimplicit-constexpr.
Is that the only testcase that regresses with -fimplicit-constexpr?
I'd expect tons of others...
> > This patch adapts the test to also pass with -fimplicit-constexpr.
> >
> > Successfully tested on x86_64-apple-darwin19.6.0 with
> > make check-c++-all RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=constexpr-asm-5.C"
> Ping? This is borderline obvious but since I’ve never played with
> inline assembly, I’d appreciate a second pair of eyes.
Wouldn't it be easier to just add -fno-implicit-constexpr to
dg-additional-options?
Jakub
