From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id AFCED3858D39; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 14:54:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AFCED3858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1688050499;
	bh=PV6KiTiSaloIALahfcqcMzK91ZXGFjZ+0btCm5D3bmc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ZfDIBypmI4cJcZisuHhJLYvyDceX/Ha14o7Dr83LOdpKYrTkH11dNbqgNgm3/3I9/
	 KsSQe9YZ0GZoYhyVPMO0pqYeo0OXxJssDsae2uYotpG6Y02GkYmQiPqWQD0RxWEl0n
	 RuocPsM6v+acchsOE/5usTeeScHjKDDwyex5+gaA=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/110486] gcc rejects constant expression with consteval
 lambda
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 14:54:55 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110486-4-Mevdzncgk0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110486-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110486-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110486

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The question is the second lamdba implicitly consteval or not ...

If it is, then the bug is dealing with that. That is adding consteval to the
second lamdba allows GCC to accept the code.=