http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54020
--- Comment #2 from Andy Lutomirski <luto at mit dot edu> 2012-07-19 15:41:51 UTC --- I clearly failed at reading comprehension yesterday. Maybe this should be considered as more of an enhancement request (like PR54021): it would be nicer for the user if constexpr worked the same with an without optimization. Otherwise there'll probably be reports of code that builds at -O2 but not -O0.
