From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 91101 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2015 19:23:06 -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 91086 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jun 2015 19:23:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no 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; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:23:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BF732CAF0B; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:23:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.116.27] ([10.10.116.27]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t5HJN2R4015979; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:23:02 -0400 Message-ID: <5581C912.6050704@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:39:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd@verizon.net>, gcc-patches , Paolo Carlini Subject: Re: [C++17] Implement N3928 - Extending static_assert References: <55453092.5050501@verizon.net> <555CA818.7020301@redhat.com> <557EF7AF.4080009@redhat.com> <557F5C53.2090009@verizon.net> <558182C8.4070204@redhat.com> <5581B436.6060402@verizon.net> In-Reply-To: <5581B436.6060402@verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg01222.txt.bz2 On 06/17/2015 01:53 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: > I tried the obvious: an error message with %qE and got 'false'. > constexpr values are evaluated early on. > > Is there a possibility that late folding could help or is that > completely different? Late folding could help, but I think handling it in libcpp (by actually stringizing the argument) would work better. Jason