<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:26 PM, Richard Smith wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:06 PM, John McCall <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rjmccall@apple.com">rjmccall@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Apr 11, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:<br>
> Author: efriedma<br>
> Date: Wed Apr 11 18:32:29 2012<br>
> New Revision: 154564<br>
><br>
> URL: <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=154564&view=rev" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=154564&view=rev</a><br>
> Log:<br>
> Add test for a construct we currently reject, constant-evaluating a load from a constant string. Given that gcc doesn't accept this, we should continue to not accept it, even though it was accidentally supported by clang for a brief period.<br>
<br>
</div>Did I miss the discussion where we decided to stop supporting this?<br>
GCC is wrong; it's pretty clearly a constant expression under the<br>
C++11 rules unless they've changed since the last time I looked.<br></blockquote></div><br><div>We (and g++) accept it in C++11, but not in any other language. This seems to conform with all relevant standards, unless I've missed something.</div>
</blockquote></div><br><div>Oh, I missed that this was a C test case; apologies.</div><div><br></div><div>John.</div></body></html>