From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32230 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2014 16:43:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32174 invoked by uid 89); 13 Nov 2014 16:42:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:42:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sADGgu6N014745 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:42:57 -0500 Received: from [10.10.116.26] ([10.10.116.26]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sADGgtVW023239; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:42:56 -0500 Message-ID: <5464DF8B.2060304@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:43:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paolo Carlini , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "Tietz, Kai" Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] Add maybe_constant_folded_value References: <54648C2B.5090509@oracle.com> <5464D7DD.70807@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5464D7DD.70807@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg01524.txt.bz2 On 11/13/2014 11:10 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 11/13/2014 05:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> shall we do something like the below? > > Something similar, yes. Though it would also be nice to avoid the > redundant checking in the two functions: we only want to do constexpr > folding if we did the tsubst. > > Kai is working on folding changes, so I think let's let him weigh in on > how this will interact with his work. Kai says this is fine with him. I think I'd like to rename the current fold_non_dependent_expr* to instantiate_non_dependent_expr* and make your new function fold_non_dependent_expr, since it's the one that's doing full constant folding. Jason