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...