jlebar added a comment. > 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++. >> 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. https://reviews.llvm.org/D25403 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
