From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A13AF3858C5F; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 14:16:29 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A13AF3858C5F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1694700989; bh=e4p87tDD+yAUwLPEPcfgGRQkLPmgUlgFanXjWbfGrvE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=khExIxlccU0rsw+gg28BHLcrKBAmuYSa2ooDfyhGkgz3iNXz4BxXYqBjE2QiWfgO6 7fMXMdWGeCG57XjvlZcQubJFfp424xIi80nG+9jFA5GS3aj9Gxl7d9sEZ4PKFgRNAO DdMbyi2sOoeYXVuwHRY8FAZ2Mn/c5YLum2pRG6o8= From: "mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/111272] [13/14 Regression] Truncated error messages with -std=c++23 and -std=c++26 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 14:16:29 +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: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111272 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Paul Keir from comment #4) > I believe P2448R2 would only allow the code, without the static_assert. > Explicitly calling `test()`, `Jam::Jam()` and then `Jam::ft()` here would > mean evaluating a non-constexpr function (i.e. `ft`). ft is > *constexpr-suitable*, but still needs the `constexpr` specifier when it is > constant evaluated. I agree.=