On 10/09/2014 11:15 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I noticed today that given the actual C++11 the error messages we provide:"constexpr constructor does not have empty body" and: "body of constexpr function ‘XXX’ not a return-statement" are rather outdated and misleading. In principle we should probably also provide more fine grained error messages, but if you have suggestions for less misleading catch all, I volunteer to do the change and adjust the testcases...
I don't know that there's much room for improvement in a catch-all message, though I'm open to suggestions. Better to give fine grained errors, as you say.
Also, I have been thinking that it would probably make sense to move constexpr-related code to a separate cp/constexpr.c: what do you think?
Yes, I've been thinking about that, too. Jason
