http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45923
--- Comment #8 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-11-03
20:55:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 22268
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22268
constexpr diagnostics test case #04
This is just a test case for previously-reported-and fixed bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45923
--- Comment #7 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-11-03
20:48:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 22266
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22266
constexpr diagnostics test case #03
more locality, from this under-development chrono snippet.
%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45923
--- Comment #6 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-11-03
17:42:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 22257
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22257
constexpr diagnostics test case #02
This diagnostic is for defaulted constructors. At this point,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45923
--- Comment #5 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-11-03
17:37:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 22256
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22256
constexpr diagnostics test case #01
This is a test case that shows locality information for faile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45923
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-11-03
17:32:23 UTC ---
This is going to be re-purposed into a more general bugreport about constexpr
and diagnostics. The goal is to try and get compiler messages about why code
constructs are or are not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45923
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2010-10-08
18:37:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > It is not valid for real() to be constexpr in a non-literal class
>
> This is a helpful diagnostic. The existing one is not.
constexpr-basic.cc:9:20: err
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45923
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-10-08
17:12:35 UTC ---
> It is not valid for real() to be constexpr in a non-literal class
This is a helpful diagnostic. The existing one is not.
-benjamin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45923
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2010-10-07
15:35:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> constexpr-basic.cc:20:33: error: ‘double complex::real() const’ is not a
> constexpr function
>
> NO!
Yes. It is not valid for real() to be constexpr in a
