https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
Ross Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ross.martin at ieee dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ross Martin from comment #14)
> This change to not be able to pull out a reference to the real or imaginary
> parts has messed me up. The assumption being made by this new complex class
> is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
Once we have ref-qualifiers, it should be OK to add the non-const overload
with an lvalue ref-qualifier, though.
Now we have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-11-09 10:36:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Can't you qualify the constexpr version with const?
Yes.
That wouldn't exactly
match the signature in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-11-08
08:11:58 UTC ---
Just a note to the accidental reader: C++11 as published is well known to miss
quite a number of constexpr. Adding those is conforming, a specific DR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-08
15:18:51 UTC ---
I meant that with the current libstdc++ complex, this is valid:
constexpr float f = complexfloat(2.4).real();
but adding a non-constexpr overload would cause
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-11-08
15:51:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I meant that with the current libstdc++ complex, this is valid:
constexpr float f = complexfloat(2.4).real();
but adding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-11-08
18:40:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #8)
Once we have ref-qualifiers, it should be OK to add the non-const overload
with
an lvalue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo at gcc dot gnu.org|gdr at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-11-08
00:05:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Isn't the const redundant here?
Maybe, the code predates constexpr.
Actually, I only see constexpr for the specializations
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-08
01:08:16 UTC ---
Hmm, I think adding the overloads would interfere with usage of complex
temporaries in a constant expression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-11-08
07:44:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I'm sorry, I misunderstood you, you meant C++11 does not mandate the constexpr
in the primary. Actually, I guess it doesn't
15 matches
Mail list logo
