[Bug c++/65695] [4.9/5 Regression] NSDMI calling constexpr constructor with pointer-to-member is not a constant expression

["jaehnesn at gmx dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695

--- Comment #10 from Sebastian Jähne <jaehnesn at gmx dot de> ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #9)
> (In reply to Sebastian Jähne from comment #8)
> > [..] However, please remember that you are using a
> > constexpr static member to store this address. Constexpr are evaluated at
> > compile time. 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, you can only
> > take the address of a member function at runtime.
> 
> That is a wrong assumption. It is a valid constant expression to retrieve a
> pointer-to-member address.

I made this assumption on the fact that your code runs when not using a
constexpr. I will investigate the exact requirements for constexpr in the
standard and reply when I find something helpful.
>From gcc-bugs-return-483293-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Apr 10 12:04:05 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-483293-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28141 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2015 12:04:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28097 invoked by uid 48); 10 Apr 2015 12:04:02 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/65695] [4.9/5 Regression] NSDMI calling constexpr constructor with pointer-to-member is not a constant expression
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:04:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-65695-4-1PgDI823jJ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65695-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65695-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00845.txt.bz2
Content-length: 257

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ide695

--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Please take the discussion somewhere else, it doesn't belong here. The testcase
in this bug report is valid code and should be accepted.