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 A9F5F3857C54; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:18:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A9F5F3857C54
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1594642731;
 bh=7bSgOMfJHu33LG4NqUmGfl/3mim+ypSSOrrShxTGffU=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=WTku4hcuVAY8+tlrUrIJ0BINPkahofI9sISYyyOy59TaSAuwo5Z2c/vF/eF02yv0e
 5WAuoyvcKrdtv33aInRy17pX+0Trzdy5IW451z2OKQ40Iz/CIDmitktOVATh4prfMG
 b392s0n1lP7gMaUrX9u52gKyrqcuR35AbS1rmA7Q=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/96182] GCC accepts constexpr function with no
 return-statement
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:18:51 +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: accepts-invalid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
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-96182-4-YlkyHvSPD2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96182-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96182-4@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: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:18:51 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96182

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
E.g.
constexpr int foo (int x) { if (x =3D=3D 5) return 3; } constexpr int a =3D=
 foo (5);
is accepted just with warning by both compilers and I think that is right, =
it
is only an error if one does constexpr int b =3D foo (4); or similar.
But for some reason clang treats your case differently (when there are no
return statements at all), but only in constexpr functions.  Not sure how i=
s it
backed up, unless the standard says that a constexpr function must have a
return statement or something similar, not sure if that is ok.  It is true =
that
in these cases all invocations of such function in constant expression cont=
exts
will result in an error, but if you don't invoke them...=