http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53473
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Nov 18 15:26:45 2013
New Revision: 204967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/53473
* g++.dg/cpp0x/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53473
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53473
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.1, 4.9.0
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53473
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-25
09:44:45 UTC ---
Yes, odd indeed.
Oddly, Clang barfs on the testcase with a similar error:
t.cc:6:34: error: conflicting types for 'foo'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53473
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2012-05-25 09:07:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Does the standard allow exceptions in constexpr? A throw is not exactly a
> return statement, but according to the rule "constexpr function shall satisfy
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53473
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz 2012-05-25 08:53:36
UTC ---
Does the standard allow exceptions in constexpr? A throw is not exactly a
return statement, but according to the rule "constexpr function shall satisfy
[...] exactly one return statem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53473
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler
2012-05-25 06:56:06 UTC ---
This looks indeed like an odd compiler error and one really needs all three
specifiers static, constexpr, and *any* exception-specification to produce the
problem. For completeness th
