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 033673858C60; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 17:09:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 033673858C60
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1694797750;
	bh=AXI82ng83+D0sL1wQxCOPwaOJq3F/bbZ8U4RDiyKurI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=QpDe/H2kp40XvpOWdNcnLvuxzzDsehE1xZQb5I3Di+5k3juTPai2zoJpSYII17udo
	 tMb611so/c3Sp1xPjjS1xn2Kre17jKVyd2fp64WG/WMo+4PP/GHngIlm0AxFRs0n+m
	 3fK4NBj+wmHhDC9N24DC0gAiwKbKeEKq9QCFn0jw=
From: "malekwryyy at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/111421] constexpr not working with array subscript
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 17:09:09 +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: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: malekwryyy at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
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-111421-4-gS6ZgQjfGp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111421-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111421-4@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=3D111421

--- Comment #3 from Abdulmalek Almkainzi <malekwryyy at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to joseph@codesourcery.com from comment #1)
> See the definitions of "named constant" and "compound literal constant".=
=20=20
> Array element accesses aren't allowed, and the example you have with "->"=
=20
> shouldn't be accepted either (although the standard rules for=20
> implementation-defined constant expressions probably allow implementation=
s=20
> to accept such an example if they so choose).

Alright, I see how this is not a GCC bug and instead part of the standard.=
=20

But may I ask how this is even the case? the expression is constant and can=
 be
evaluated at compile time.=