Re: [C++ PAtch] More C++11 and C++14 constexpr work

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi,

On 10/09/2014 04:18 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/09/2014 09:49 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 10/09/2014 03:31 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 10/08/2014 03:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > > >     (check_constexpr_ctor_body): Use it; add bool parameter.
> > > This function seems to only be called in one place; why add the
> > > parameter?
> > Is also called recursively by check_constexpr_ctor_body_1 and without
> > the complain boolean we end up printing the error message twice.
> Ah, guess I overlooked that.  OK.
Thanks, I'm going to commit the patch.

I noticed today that given the actual C++11 the error messages we provide:

    "constexpr constructor does not have empty body"

and:

    "body of constexpr function âXXXâ not a return-statement"

are rather outdated and misleading. In principle we should probably also 
provide more fine grained error messages, but if you have suggestions 
for less misleading catch all, I volunteer to do the change and adjust 
the testcases...

Also, I have been thinking that it would probably make sense to move 
constexpr-related code to a separate cp/constexpr.c: what do you think? 
Functions with *constexpr* in the name, the various cxx_eval_* and the 
various potential_constant_* would qualify, I think.

Paolo.