https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117727
Jiang An <de34 at live dot cn> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #7 from Jiang An <de34 at live dot cn> ---
> MSVC only says the last static_assert fails and accepts the first one.
I believe that MSVC is wrong on this per https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.eq#5.
> Is this (all bits if a nullptr_t being padding bits) in the spec or are you
> referring to gcc's implementation?
It seems that the value representation of nullptr_t is totally unspecified in
the C++ standard.
I'm trying to submit a CWG issue to make it implementation-defined
(https://github.com/cplusplus/CWG/issues/644). Anyway, I guess the
implementation divergence (modulo MSVC's incorrect operator==) should be
permitted.
