From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14324 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2012 16:22:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 14264 invoked by uid 48); 3 Oct 2012 16:22:29 -0000 From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/49171] [C++0x][constexpr] Constant expressions support reinterpret_cast Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:22:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com 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: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D49171 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler 2012-10-03 16:22:24 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Daniel, what's the status of this issue? Is there some consensus that GCC= is > actually Ok, we don't really want to reject reinterpret_casts? My opinion is that gcc should start to implement the new core rules in rega= rd to reinterpret_cast *except* for cases that are well-defined. > Because I would find very useful a constexpr std::addressof. For the time= being > we could certainly have it constexpr anyway and change the implementation > details when/if the C++ front-end starts rejecting reintepret_casts, but I > would rather not. Exactly this usage of reinterpret_cast seems IMO to be well granted by the standard - at least by the way I read it.