[Bug c++/77922] Bogus suggestion: ‘constexpr’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘constexpr’?

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922

Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> > pr.C:1:1: note: C++11 ‘constexpr’ only available with -std=c++11 or
> > -std=gnu++11
> 
> Also this note isn't true, because it's also available with -std=gnu++14, or
> with no option, etc.

This is similar to the text of some other C++ diagnostics where GCC says
something like "in C++ 11, this must be that" when the meaning is sometimes "in
C++ 11 and prior" and other times "in C++ 11 and later."

As we discussed (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg02422.html) I
think it would be helpful to decide which style is clearer (or come up with one
that is) and adopt it throughout.