This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
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constructor does not have empty body" and: "body of constexpr function âXXXâ not a return-statement"are rather outdated and misleading.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.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |