This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++0x constexpr PATCHes #7-10: the rest of the compiler support
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:51 AM, H.J. Lu <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:51 PM, H.J. Lu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Jason Merrill <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> The rest of these patches I'm not applying immediately because the last one
>>> depends on my fold_indirect_ref_1 patch, and it doesn't really make sense to
>>> apply the others without the last one; I'm just sending them to the list now
>>> to make the end of Stage 1.
>>> decl_constant_var.patch: Replaces uses of DECL_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT_VAR_P with
>>> the new decl_constant_var_p which also allows constexpr variables, adjusts
>>> when-used template instantiation to require immediate instantiation of
>>> constexpr functions.
>>> constexpr-register.patch: Handles storing the definition of constexpr
>>> functions for later expansion.
>>> constexpr-eval.patch: Handles the actual compile-time evaluation of C++0x
>>> constant expressions.
>>> constexpr-integrate.patch: Integrates the C++0x constant expression
>>> semantics into the rest of the compiler.
>>> The last patch in particular still needs some work; in particular, I still
>>> need to sort out the relationship between constant expression evaluation and
>>> value_dependent_expression_p. ?I think this will just mean using
>>> potential_constant_expression, but it still needs to happen; I think this
>>> can be cleaned up in stage 3.
>> The last patch caused:
> It also caused:
The second patch caused: