On Jan 19, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Matthieu Monrocq wrote: > > > Le 19 janvier 2012 17:52, Jonathan Sauer <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> Do you know if the same apply (I would guess so) to std::strlen ? > >> > >> It seems a pity that such a trivial function could not be constexpr as > >> making it constexpr is actually dead simple. I wonder if it would be worth > >> a Defect Report. > >> > > This would seem very reasonable to me... > > As well as a lot (all?) of the math functions in cmath. And clang's built-ins > (__builtin_sin etc), too. > > > What do you think? > Jonathan > > I haven't followed the C11 proposal, is the "constexpr" idea addressed there > or would it be a specific C++ issue ? > > C++ imports a massive amount of C functions, and keeping their signature > as-is will be a hindrance, I don't fancy the idea of recoding them all in > pure C++ to allow such optimizations! It seems like at least the `std::` > versions could be made `constexpr` when possible. > > I am putting Howard in copy since this seems something libc++ would be > interested in, and perhaps his C++ committee experience could help us here. > > -- Matthieu
I have not come up to speed on constexpr. However, I do know that if it is the case that no conforming program could detect (or behave differently -- besides performance) if the constexpr is added to a C function, then it should be ok. Howard _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
