On 08.10.2024 17:38, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 10/8/24 09:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.10.2024 17:30, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Hmmm, looking at the complete documentation for this built-in, and the
>>> code, I think I'd go a little farther with fixing up the docs.
>>>
>>> Since requiring the first operand to be a constant is also different
>>> behavior than the ?: operator, it's misleading to state only the return
>>> type as being different. So I'd rewrite the whole paragraph quoted above:
>>>
>>> Like the @samp{? :} operator, the built-in function does not evaluate
>>> the expression that is not chosen. For example, if @var{const_exp}
>>> evaluates
>>> to @code{true}, @var{exp2} is not evaluated even if it has side effects.
>>> On the other hand, @code{__builtin_choose_expr} differs from @samp{? :}
>>> in that the first operand must be a compile-time constant, and the other
>>> operands are not subject to the @samp{? :} type constraints and promotions.
>>
>> Fine with me; I assume you will then simply put in your version of the
>> change?
>
> I'm actually not in a good position to do that anytime soon (I'm both
> sick with COVID and in the middle of hacking on something else), so if
> you could push the change I'd be grateful.
Done.
Jan
