[Bug c++/91369] Implement P0784R7: constexpr new

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369

--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> So, is the [class.dtor]/9 note just incorrect and should be removed, or
> clarified somehow?  I believe it shouldn't affect what actually is a literal
> type or not, because the constructor of a class without virtual bases which
> has a non-static data member that has virtual bases can't be constexpr either.

I think a virtual base just shouldn't make the destructor non-constexpr, which
would make the note correct.  I've emailed CWG to that effect.