https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348

--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> BTW, shall size() and data() be manifestly constant-evaluated?
> I think it doesn't satisfy any of the https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#19
> bullets (unlike first static_assert argument).

Good point, I think we're missing some wording to make that all manifestly
constant-evaluated; it absolutely should be.

(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Then it should be a warning rather than error IMHO.  Because it isn't
> invalid, just likely unintended.

Agreed.

Reply via email to