Re: [boost] Boost.Exception and constexpr

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Exception and constexpr
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-10 16:27:33

Le 10/01/13 22:10, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
> Le 10/01/13 20:47, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
>> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Le 10/01/13 20:12, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
>>>> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> Le 10/01/13 19:13, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
>>>> The constructor doesn't make any difference, it's the at() method body
>>>> that causes the error.
>>> Yes it does.
>> The implicit default constructor is constexpr when possible, so
>> defining it constexpr explicitly doesn't make any difference.
>>
> Maybe you are right. I said that because clang was requiring it but 
> gcc-4.7 accept the default constructor as a constexpr.
>
I have checked it and you were right.

"If that user-written default constructor would satisfy the requirements 
of a constexpr constructor (7.1.5),
the implicitly-defined default constructor is constexpr"

It seems that clang 3.2 has a bug here.

Thanks,
Vicente