Hi!
The following PR has been fixed by the changes to evaluate constexpr
functions on pre-folding/genericization trees.
I've tested the following testcase on x86_64-linux and committed to trunk as
obvious, so that we don't regress it.
2019-04-16 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR c++/86953
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-86953.C: New test.
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-86953.C.jj 2019-04-16
15:55:53.938063633 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-86953.C 2019-04-16
15:55:48.072160330 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// PR c++/86953
+// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
+// { dg-options "-O2" }
+
+struct B {
+ double x;
+ bool y, z;
+ constexpr bool operator== (const B& o) const noexcept
+ {
+ return x == o.x && y == o.y && z == o.z;
+ }
+ constexpr bool operator!= (const B& o) const noexcept { return !(*this ==
o); }
+};
+
+int
+main ()
+{
+ bool b = B{} == B{};
+}
Jakub
