https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111379
Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jiang An from comment #1)
> There's (or will be) a new DR CWG2749 which tentatively ready now.
> https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2749.html
>
> It seems that the old resolution in CWG2526 was wrong, and the comparison
> should be constexpr-friendly.
>
> BTW I don't think there was anything specifying that "the comparison would
> have *undefined* behaviour" before CWG2526.
It is (or was) unspecified, not undefined. And the standard explicitly
disallows "a relational operator where the result is unspecified" in
[expr.const].
