From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6882 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2005 02:38:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6550 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2005 02:38:05 -0000 Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050131023805.6549.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "austern at apple dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050125203257.19628.austern@apple.com> References: <20050125203257.19628.austern@apple.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/19628] [3.4/4.0 Regression] g++ no longer accepts __builtin_constant_p in constant-expressions X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg04540.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From austern at apple dot com 2005-01-31 02:38 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] g++ no longer accepts __builtin_constant_p in constant-expressions > it checks for built-ins that can appear in consant-expressions, but > the name > might seem to refer exclusively to __builtin_constant_p. A name like > "builtin_valid_in_constant_expr_p" would seem better. I agree, that's a better name. I'll change it. > (Matt, I think you should also check what happens when > __builtin_constant_p is > used as a template argument with dependent arguments, like: > template > void f(int &[__builtin_constant_p (I) + 2]); Actually, it ICEs. That would be a regression. I think I'd better fix it before checking this in. --Matt -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19628