[Bug c++/54020] [c++0x] incorrectly accepted constexpr functions

[luto at mit dot edu]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54020

--- Comment #2 from Andy Lutomirski <luto at mit dot edu> 2012-07-19 15:41:51 UTC ---
I clearly failed at reading comprehension yesterday.

Maybe this should be considered as more of an enhancement request (like
PR54021): it would be nicer for the user if constexpr worked the same with an
without optimization.  Otherwise there'll probably be reports of code that
builds at -O2 but not -O0.