http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-07 20:57:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Whatever it is, doesn't have much to do with constexpr, consider: That definitely makes it feel like 0*n being considered a null pointer constant when it should not be.
