https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65327

Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-03-16
                 CC|                            |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed then.  I wonder if

--- gcc/cp/decl.c
+++ gcc/cp/decl.c
@@ -10134,8 +10134,9 @@ grokdeclarator (const cp_declarator *declarator,
      the object as `const'.  */
   if (constexpr_p && innermost_code != cdk_function)
     {
-      if (type_quals & TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE)
-        error ("both %<volatile%> and %<constexpr%> cannot be used here");
+      /* DR1688 says that a `constexpr' specifier in combination with
+     `volatile' is valid.  */
+
       if (TREE_CODE (type) != REFERENCE_TYPE)
     {
       type_quals |= TYPE_QUAL_CONST;

is enough...

Reply via email to