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 6DBEE3858C3A; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:19:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6DBEE3858C3A
From: "arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/81157] If constexpr does not support Short-circuit evaluation
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:19:04 +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: 7.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-81157-4-ybUN5xPNFf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-81157-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-81157-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:19:04 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D81157

Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |arthur.j.odwyer at gmail d=
ot com

--- Comment #1 from Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com> ---
I'd say neither a bug nor a defect. In `if constexpr (X && Y)`, `X && Y` is=
 an
expression and it must be well-formed, even if it's false -- just like if y=
ou
did `static_assert((X && Y) =3D=3D false)`. GCC is behaving according to th=
e C++
Standard in this case.

Recommend closing as INVALID.=