Hi! As mentioned in the PR, constexpr.c has been handling cases with ranges just as the lowest value of the range.
Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? What about 6.2 (not a regression, but low risk fix for wrong-code)? 2016-08-11 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR c++/72868 * constexpr.c (label_matches): Handle case range expressions. * g++.dg/cpp1y/constexpr-switch4.C: New test. --- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj 2016-08-10 00:21:07.000000000 +0200 +++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c 2016-08-10 22:17:16.577041975 +0200 @@ -3448,6 +3448,12 @@ label_matches (tree *jump_target, tree_s { if (!CASE_LOW (stmt)) default_label = i; + else if (CASE_HIGH (stmt)) + { + if (tree_int_cst_le (CASE_LOW (stmt), *jump_target) + && tree_int_cst_le (*jump_target, CASE_HIGH (stmt))) + return true; + } else if (tree_int_cst_equal (*jump_target, CASE_LOW (stmt))) return true; } --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/constexpr-switch4.C.jj 2016-08-10 22:22:29.567129868 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/constexpr-switch4.C 2016-08-10 22:23:25.104435699 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +// PR c++/72868 +// { dg-do compile } +// { dg-options "-std=gnu++14" } + +constexpr int +foo (int i) +{ + switch (i) + { + case 11 ... 12: + return 4; + case 0 ... 9: + return 3; + default: + return 7; + } +} + +#define SA(X) static_assert((X),#X) +SA (foo (-1) == 7); +SA (foo (0) == 3); +SA (foo (3) == 3); +SA (foo (9) == 3); +SA (foo (10) == 7); +SA (foo (11) == 4); +SA (foo (12) == 4); +SA (foo (13) == 7); Jakub