From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32457 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2012 20:21:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 31996 invoked by uid 48); 14 Nov 2012 20:20:34 -0000 From: "3dw4rd at verizon dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/55325] [4.8 Regression]: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C excess errors Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:21:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg01287.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325 --- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14 20:20:27 UTC --- OK, g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C will fail with the patch to control GNU literal parsing. i.e. this behavior in intended. The purpose of the test is to check that constexpr works with C99 complex literals. So we could fix the test in either one of two equivalent ways: Invoke with gnu++0x: // { dg-options -std=gnu++0x } Invoke with new flag: // { dg-options -std=c++0x -fext-numeric-literals } Any preference on which one? I'll look at the other fails.