https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
--- Comment #9 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Created attachment 46976
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46976&action=edit
attachment-52942-1.eml
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
--- Comment #8 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Ugh!
What to do next?
Well,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Feb 23 03:01:59 2019
New Revision: 269148
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269148&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89446 fix null pointer dereference in char_traits
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-08-29 00:00:00 |2016-4-26
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
--- Comment #3 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Actually wait. I think this is invalid and clang is incorrect in not
> rejecting it. Because you have a call to a non constexpr in a constexpr
> function; doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually wait. I think this is invalid and clang is incorrect in not rejecting
it. Because you have a call to a non constexpr in a constexpr function; does
not matter if it is after a return or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC does not implement the full C++14 rules for constexpr yet. That is having
a return type of void is not implemented yet. It was invalid for C++11 to have
a constexpr with void.
