From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-344148-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18000 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2011 19:27:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 17990 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jan 2011 19:27:44 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:27:40 +0000
From: "bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/45923] constexpr diagnostics, more more
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-45923-4-MK7fvtoXxJ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-45923-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-45923-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:00:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg02087.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45923

--- Comment #11 from Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-20 19:27:27 UTC ---

Know this is not high-priority bug for 4.6.0 but it should be as constexpr is a
new feature and the initial QoI for diagnostics is important for user's first
impressions. Diagnostics are lagging, as this is a new form of C++ diagnostic:
there are some interesting opportunities here. We can do better!!

I've given some examples, but I'm  not quite sure what is required and what
Jason and Gaby are thinking in terms of how this stuff should be architected.
Thoughts or sketches guys?

If a plan can be outlined here in bugzilla, then perhaps it could be split into
smaller parts and independently executed?