[cmake-developers] [PATCH] Macro generation for relaxed constexpr

[Jean-Michaël Celerier]

> Qt 5 provides a macro for this context which expands to either 'const' or
'constexpr' depending on whether cxx_constexpr is available, and another
macro which expands to either 'const' or 'constexpr' depending on whether
cxx_relaxed_constexpr is available.

Thinking of it, since C++14 constexpr does not imply const anymore, so
isn't this macro ambiguous wrt standard c++ ?



On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Kelly <steveire at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jean-Michaël Celerier wrote:
>
> >> I think there should be a test for the different allowed contexts of the
> > ${prefix_arg}_RELAXED_CONSTEXPR and ${prefix_arg}_CONSTEXPR macros. Could
> > you extend Tests/Module/WriteCompilerDetectionHeader with a test for
> that?
> >
> > For sure, I'll do this asap.
> >
>
> Great, thanks!
>
> Steve.
>
>
> --
>
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
>
> Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more
> information on each offering, please visit:
>
> CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
> CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
> CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/attachments/20150803/535dace7/attachment.html>