On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote: > Greetings, > > I have a patch in my tree that employs the constexpr keyword in most of the > places in the library where it is required in n3000. This patch bootstraps > and causes no new regressions on MacOS at least. I still need test cases. > > My question is this: Is constexpr in good enough shape to put this in? Some > message seemed to suggest it wasn't finished yet.
a previous patch sent to gcc-patches was enough to handle all of the uses of constexpr in the standard library (and more). However, it did not pass review for certain implementation choices (e.g. tagging certain expressions as irreducible, see full discussion in the gcc-patches archive), and it was late with respect to GCC-4.5 schedule. Now, LWG wants const reference parameters in constexpr functions. Whilethat is simple to get, certain implementation choices need slight revision. I never got time to do that in revised submissions requested by Jason on several occasions. If LWG gets what it wants, then the const refs have to be part of what would be necessary to get 'constexpr' in the library. > > Thanks, > > Ed > >
