News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Proposal to add constexpr to C [pdf] by boulos on Saturday October 16, 2021 @09:47PM (#28893275)
Hmm, is that just because of the template resolution? (and so wouldn't apply to constexpr in C)

AFAICT, something about the template declarations is making the call of f(x) to be "who could know" (which should just be fail).

The same thing with concrete types says that f isn't constexpr [3]. And you have to make it actually constexpr by removing the static from counter [4].

[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/constexpr-cpp?view=...

[2] https://godbolt.org/z/7rGWbP1xz

[3] https://godbolt.org/z/5WjMr3Kjv

[4] https://godbolt.org/z/v9rc1j9zc

Re:Proposal to add constexpr to C [pdf] by dataflow on Saturday October 16, 2021 @10:13PM (#28893388)
I think it's because of ADL, which also wouldn't apply in C.
Re:Proposal to add constexpr to C [pdf] by dataflow on Sunday October 17, 2021 @03:19PM (#28898975)
Edit: Actually maybe I'm wrong... even if you scope it it won't warn you.