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 7A4B2386F425; Wed, 27 May 2020 08:07:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7A4B2386F425
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1590566827;
 bh=VTUHPrWT47HnDz08c2mCCEmucVG0m2vhnmS/runEWKw=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=aLxEVLurttcQ2/FLUIKCMQzAdn8hYKeGQ4So7Fwt08Tulb0bJgwo0Ygb5R4/Ob039
 LC9pKuIP6geI395DmXq/G6jrA6jQlEcq5WEigCFzdBw+OrMfyXL3OeXMGq3FouP1TG
 Ru3Z/ygKZ5PJmwRLLeQKhV/oN7IfbwXid8Yvopzs=
From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/95242] [10/11 Regression] spurious "warning: zero as null
 pointer constant [-Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant]" on comparisons with
 -std=c++2a
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 08:07:07 +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: 10.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-95242-4-phKWyciY3v@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95242-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95242-4@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: <http://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: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 08:07:07 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95242

--- Comment #5 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot =
com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> It's consteval, the throw is there to make it not a constant expression a=
nd
> give an error if anything except 0 is used. i.e. it can never throw, it
> either compiles or it doesn't.

Sure, I understand that, but that should still result in a failure of a sta=
tic
assertion testing for noexcept, e.g. consider:

struct __unspec=20
{
  consteval __unspec(int __n) { if (__n !=3D 0) throw __n; }
};

static_assert(noexcept(__unspec(0)));

int main()
{
}=