https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If the compiler can prove the addresses are the same or are different, then
sure, it will evaluate to constant 0 or 1. The question is if the compiler
must be able to prove it in all cases (which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
--- Comment #6 from Frank Secilia ---
I can't find anything in the standard under `constant expressions` or
`converted constant expressions` that explicitly allows non-null
pointer-to-member-functions in constexpr contexts, but I also can't find
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
--- Comment #5 from Frank Secilia ---
Created attachment 45744
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45744=edit
alternative verbose compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
--- Comment #4 from Frank Secilia ---
Created attachment 45743
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45743=edit
alternative repro case using pointers to method
Here is a similar case using pointers to methods. I'm honestly not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
--- Comment #1 from Frank Secilia ---
Created attachment 45738
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45738=edit
verbose compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
--- Comment #2 from Frank Secilia ---
I searched for existing bugs. I don't know the codebase, but I think it may be
another repro case for https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53181.
