https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think clang still gives a better error message here though:
:43:15: error: static assertion expression is not an integral constant
expression
static_assert(test_swap());
^~~
:18:17: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff465bd8a0f0f96a00d3067018442917b194b7af
commit r12-7831-gff465bd8a0f0f96a00d3067018442917b194b7af
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. GCC 9 showed this instead of the "" part:
x.ii:15:7: error: expression
'(((expected*)this)->expected::has_value() ? ((&
__x)->expected::has_value() ? ({...}) : ({...})) : ((&
__x)->expected::has_valu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think just "note: neither branch of ‘if’ is a valid ‘constexpr’ body" without
the "because ..." and the following notes would be good enough.
It tells the user to look at the 'if' body, not the conditio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-25
Ever confirmed|0
