Re: [Boost-users] generalize boost macros

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] generalize boost macros
From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-02-02 19:37:29

On 02/02/2019 19:03, Robert Ramey via Boost-users wrote:
> On 2/1/19 1:08 PM, John Maddock via Boost-users wrote:
>> There has been some work towards making the library constexpr 
>> throughout where possible: but I came to the conclusion that it 
>> wasn't possible without is_constant_evaluated() from C++20. 
>> numeric_limits<float128> might be possible though.
>
>
> Hmm - I've heard that gcc already implements is_constant_evaluated(). 
> Could be wrong though.  In any case, the capability in the works for 
> HAS_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED? or similar?  I think I could benefit from 
> it right now.

I don't think it's in any released gcc version, but they are busy making 
use of it in libstdc++ development I believe, so it's on it's way.  I'm 
hoping most compiler vendors will make it available in pre-C++20 mode as 
well.  Ah wait, it's scheduled for gcc-9: 
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx2a

|__builtin_constant_p almost does what we need, but it's GCC only (clang 
supports it, but it doesn't do constexpr detection as it always returns 
the same value so far as I can tell).|

|There are some suggested gadgets here: 
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13299394/is-is-constexpr-possible-in-c11 
which detect whether a function may be used in a constexpr context, but 
nothing that permits you to determine whether the current context is 
constexpr or not (one claim to the contrary not withstanding).
|

Best, John.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus