New C features in GCC 13

Re:New C features in GCC 13 by flohofwoe on Friday May 05, 2023 @03:21AM (#35826270)

"Modern compilers" still fail at:

    const int bla = 23;
    const int blub[bla] = { 0 };

(see: https://www.godbolt.org/z/hjessMhGK)

Isn't this exactly what constexpr is supposed to solve?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New C features in GCC 13 by quelsolaar on Friday May 05, 2023 @05:29AM (#35827008)

If so why not fix const? Why add a whole new keyword? Why complicate the language?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New C features in GCC 13 by flohofwoe on Friday May 05, 2023 @07:10AM (#35827717)

Don't know, you're in WG14, not me :D

Maybe 'const' can't be fixed without breaking existing source code?

I don't really have a problem with adding a new keyword for 'actually const', maybe calling it 'constexpr' means C++ people have wrong expectations though, dunno.

For me, having constexpr being explicit about only accepting actual constant expressions, and creating an error otherwise (instead of silently falling back to a 'runtime expression') is fine, but the existing keyword 'const' has an entirely different meaning, there's just an unfortunate naming collision with other languages where const means 'compile time constant'.

[ Parent | on HN ]