[Bug c++/71035] GNU does not give error on declaration of non literal type in template function

["Judy.Ward at intel dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035

--- Comment #2 from Judy Ward <Judy.Ward at intel dot com> ---
Yes I have a beta copy of EDG 
4.11 which has relaxed constexpr and they give an error. Unfortunately some
Boost code (I think inadvertently) relies on not giving a diagnostic.

Yes I see your point that this is really a QOI issue but GNU does seem
inconsistent and EDG will have to emulate that inconsistency.

Thanks
Judy

> On May 9, 2016, at 7:38 PM, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035
> 
> Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> 
>           What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>           Keywords|                            |accepts-invalid
>             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
>   Last reconfirmed|                            |2016-05-09
>                 CC|                            |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
>     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
>      Known to fail|                            |4.9.3, 5.3.0, 6.1.0
>           Severity|normal                      |enhancement
> 
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Hi Judy!
> 
> I'll take a stab at this -- let me know if I missed something.  I agree that
> similarly to the non-template case, (in the absence of a valid explicit
> specialization) diagnosing the constexpr function template below would be
> useful, even though in p5 and p6 of [dcl.constexpr], the standard leaves both
> cases as a matter of QoI:
> 
> -6-  If the instantiated template specialization of a constexpr function
> template o member function of a class template would fail to satisfy the
> requirements for a constexpr function or constexpr constructor, that
> specialization is still a constexpr function or constexpr constructor, even
> though a call to such a function cannot appear in a constant expression.  If no
> specialization of the template would satisfy the requirements for a constexpr
> function or constexpr constructor when considered as a non-template function or
> constructor, the template is ill-formed; no diagnostic required.
> 
> (I read the last sentence as referring to implicit specializations of the
> template definition, not explicit ones with valid definitions.)
> 
> Thus, I'm inclined to view this bug not as a defect but an enhancement request.
> Let me know if you disagree.
> 
> Clang is more strict than GCC here by issuing the optional diagnostic.
> 
> My copy of EDG (version 4.10) rejects the program because it doesn't fully
> implement the C++ 14 rules: a) it doesn't recognize void as a literal type, and
> b) it doesn't allow statements in constexpr functions.
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.