[Bug c++/56868] Constexpr example in 7.1.5/5 fails to compile correctly

2018-10-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/56868] Constexpr example in 7.1.5/5 fails to compile correctly

2018-10-01 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/56868] Constexpr example in 7.1.5/5 fails to compile correctly

2015-04-27 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868 Kai Tietz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee

[Bug c++/56868] Constexpr example in 7.1.5/5 fails to compile correctly

2013-04-07 Thread daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler at |

[Bug c++/56868] Constexpr example in 7.1.5/5 fails to compile correctly

2013-04-07 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-07 21:10:04 UTC --- Don't we have an old issue with folding happening too early in some cases? I'm wondering if this isn't just an example, but I can't quickly find that issue.

[Bug c++/56868] Constexpr example in 7.1.5/5 fails to compile correctly

2013-04-07 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-07 20:57:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Whatever it is, doesn't have much to do with constexpr, consider: That definitely makes it feel like 0*n being considered a null pointer constant w

[Bug c++/56868] Constexpr example in 7.1.5/5 fails to compile correctly

2013-04-07 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-07 19:41:33 UTC --- Whatever it is, doesn't have much to do with constexpr, consider: #include int f(void *) { return 0; } int f(...) { return 1; } int g(int n) { return f(n*0); } int m

[Bug c++/56868] Constexpr example in 7.1.5/5 fails to compile correctly

2013-04-07 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-07 18:51:00 UTC --- Looks like 0*0 is being considered a null pointer constant.

[Bug c++/56868] Constexpr example in 7.1.5/5 fails to compile correctly

2013-04-07 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|

[Bug c++/56868] Constexpr example in 7.1.5/5 fails to compile correctly

2013-04-07 Thread g++bug at oxyware dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868 --- Comment #1 from Hubert Matthews 2013-04-07 18:39:04 UTC --- Compiled with g++-4.7.0 -Wall -Wextra -std=c++11 on Fedora 14, 64-bit.