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

Jean-Michaël Celerier jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com
Wed Jul 8 16:02:45 EDT 2015


> 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.

> constexpr foo = ...;

If I read http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/constexpr
correctly, there should be no differences in variable handling between
C++11 and 14 for constexpr, the changes are only for function bodies.



Jean-Michaël


On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Kelly <steveire at gmail.com> wrote:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
>> * A method marked constexpr will fail to compile with a compiler which
>> does not support relaxed constexpr if the method uses language which
>> requires relaxed mode (such as a for loop), even if the method is
>> evaluated in a non- constant expression. I tested GCC and Clang.
>
> Are there any values of '...' where
>
>  constexpr foo = ...;
>
> would compile or not depending only on whether using cxx11-constexpr or
> cxx14-constexpr?
>
> 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


More information about the cmake-developers mailing list