On Monday 25 November 2024 00:39:37 Pacific Standard Time Schimkowitsch Robert wrote: > Well, my idea was mostly to test extreme cases in constexpr context, so you > get compiler errors if you overlooked something and e.g. cause unsigned > wraparound when getting passed int_max.
That should be done in unit testing, wherever possible. Some conditions we simply can't test, such as *succeeding* in allocating a memory block of a size comparable to PTRDIFF_MAX because such a block is not architecturally possible (on 64-bit machines). As a rule of thumb for test writers: always test your boundary conditions. > But as mentioned above, the number > of useful functions I can write constexpr is probably limited. I believe > Herb rather meant this example to show that it is possible to reduce the > amount of UB allowed in the language. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Principal Engineer - Intel DCAI Platform & System Engineering
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
