https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Adam Mitz from comment #0) > May be related to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87605 but > this doesn't involve the ternary operator. It's similar, but I don't think it's the same bug, because the example in PR 87605 was always incorrectly accepted by GCC. The one here used to be rejected and so is a regression.
