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 Ã©crit :
> Le 10/01/13 20:47, Andrey Semashev a Ã©crit :
>> 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 Ã©crit :
>>>> 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 Ã©crit :
>>>> 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-deï¬ned default constructor is constexpr"
It seems that clang 3.2 has a bug here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk