hfinkel added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25403#580439, @jlebar wrote:
> > I'm not sure about that. It seems like a useful feature for the builtins to > > have. Logically speaking, they should be constexpr. > > I agree that it's logically correct for the builtins to be > constexpr-evaluatable. My point is just that doing this work and then > writing a test doesn't buy us much in terms of ensuring that CUDA compilation > doesn't break due to changes to libc++. True, it is not an e2e test, but it could insure that this is not the problem. > > >>> In addition, if I understand you correctly, we wouldn't be able to test all >>> of the functions here, only the ones that call builtins. >> >> What do you mean? > > This patch adds constexpr to six function definitions, but only three of them > directly call a builtin. If I understand your proposal correctly, the other > three function definitions would remain not-constexpr-evaluatable, and thus > untested. Well, we don't know about the others because it would depend on what function was found by ADL (potentially). Given that we only use these functions right now in <complex>, and how <complex> behaves for non-builtin floating-point types is not defined, I suspect this is much less concerning. https://reviews.llvm.org/D25403 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
