Boost Users :
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.Â In any case, the capability in the works for
> HAS_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED? or similar?Â 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.Â I'm
hoping most compiler vendors will make it available in pre-C++20 mode as
well.Â Ah wait, it's scheduled for gcc-9:
|__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:
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).
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net