[Bug c++/50248] [C++0x] unnecessary instantiation of constexpr constructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50248 Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-06 22:53:30 UTC --- Fixed for 4.7.
[Bug c++/50248] [C++0x] unnecessary instantiation of constexpr constructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50248 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 04:33:14 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Mon Sep 5 04:33:08 2011 New Revision: 178518 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178518 Log: PR c++/50248 Core 1358 * init.c (perform_member_init): Don't diagnose missing inits here. (emit_mem_initializers): Or here. * method.c (process_subob_fn): Don't instantiate constexpr ctors. * semantics.c (cx_check_missing_mem_inits): New. (explain_invalid_constexpr_fn): Call it. (register_constexpr_fundef): Likewise. Leave DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P set when the body is unsuitable. (cxx_eval_call_expression): Adjust diagnostics. (cxx_eval_constant_expression): Catch use of 'this' in a constructor. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-template1.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-template2.C Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/init.c trunk/gcc/cp/method.c trunk/gcc/cp/semantics.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-48089.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-ex1.C
[Bug c++/50248] [C++0x] unnecessary instantiation of constexpr constructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50248 Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2011-08-31 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jason at gcc dot gnu.org |gnu.org | Summary|[C++0x] tries to use|[C++0x] unnecessary |variadic constructor when |instantiation of constexpr |it should use default |constructor |constructor | Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-31 13:29:33 UTC --- The copy constructor isn't being defined, but the compiler is instantiating the constexpr constructor to find out if it is really constexpr, and therefore whether the implicitly-declared copy constructor should be declared constexpr. We decided at Bloomington that we should just consider instantiations of constexpr templates to be constexpr, not instantiate them to check.
