From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 103556 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2019 04:54:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 103543 invoked by uid 89); 10 Oct 2019 04:54:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mail-wm1-f50.google.com Received: from mail-wm1-f50.google.com (HELO mail-wm1-f50.google.com) (209.85.128.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 04:54:01 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-f50.google.com with SMTP id a6so5345483wma.5 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:54:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/7IQ9JQ7I2oP4hHMuPnoHMea8YmY4OAIB3+Z2TGvmPg=; b=lx7sg3Q2KxtAyMOUjJwYeaRCsbb9/+fr9TZ7mDoHuID21bcyvbkbsr1viR4pv9SEHN wi1BAcoQRLfB3bzIWZM18MX9wrXg8SkHVHcG7uXgezGB8RKnWpOcmnyyONH6ooKkLJrj Rmb2Ya5XNkWyjAol6mIoClri1x//jNda/l+KUpLvYyMkGgZ3nZhVCT7ekUDq4jAV/Jm5 6B6EkwgHD242DuBGr9F25YHyogeMBVCoB0gmkmDaJsP7SPpbmIxnNCiyy0M77wEy4hRV kelgDxZINsRmk35+1pESh+mLlF4LVe/3uaEDYY1fClU/Z/sW0WCRuxfSObQqe9IZ6uEK 0L0Q== Return-Path: Received: from [10.0.59.26] ([143.93.17.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o22sm10277227wra.96.2019.10.09.21.53.58 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:53:58 -0700 (PDT) To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org From: Klaus Doldinger Subject: gcc bug? constinit does not require constexpr ctor Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 04:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-10/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 Hi all, simple question: should in the following example the constinit case be also impossible if the required ctor is not constexpr? struct B { /*constexpr*/ B() {} }; struct A { constexpr static inline B b2{}; // not possible constinit static inline B b1{}; // should this NOT possible either? }; int main() { A a; }