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 6D17E385828E; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 18:47:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6D17E385828E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1705690060;
	bh=nOzplLgC1DRxWKkOIc8fBaoDEJnPxm3hPSI5LTXIxnc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=yMxllSXpSHjmKNtccS2LfHZMiLgiY3Do9LC2lIkg2fKbcKPNS0aAKnvL3f8HNkimp
	 bFTefN+Z1h5OGfsld4t20NtUc3n7LABRLIvKqWcd5YJyyZwYmJcAJNI4PBSGS5Y0Xj
	 Bp91adHc/EAnvnJnNKNW6MPfNe7yvonCAP9ZoTf0=
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/95564] GCC rejects lambda expression with "noexcept(1+1)"
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 18:47:39 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
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: cc resolution bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-95564-4-LK7mSDbNUd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95564-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95564-4@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=3D95564

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jiang An from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > GCC is inconsitent here. with static_assert and constexpr GCC accepts i=
t (PR
> > 87724) while rejects it for noexcept.
>=20
> Currently narrowing conversions are still forbidden in noexcept and expli=
cit
> specifiers.
>=20
> The inconsistency is acknowledged in C++23 (WG21-P1401R5), but it seems t=
hat
> P1401 is not a DR, as the related CWG 2320 is closed as extension. I don't
> know whether we should reject narrowing conversions in static_assert/if
> constexpr in earlier modes.

Narrowing conversions were fine in earlier standards, it was an accidental
change that made them ill-formed, which was fixed.

Clang now also rejects the testcase.=