https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80780
Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
| |a/show_bug.cgi?id=66561
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
When I made the built-ins constexpr in bug 66561 I thought (assumed) the intent
was for the source_location default ctor and current() member to make use of
default arguments to populate the members. That's a nice, general solution.
Treating the class as special seems like a hack to me. Why do you think it
would be nice to do that?
My own preference would be to change the TS to both make the intent clear, and
make it possible to set the parameters of the location.
Adding __builtin_PRETTY_FUNCTION is easy but I don't know about
__builtin_COLUMN(). The latter is also so underspecified that I'm not sure how
it could be relied on for anything useful.
