Mrthfx

Does Skippy chunky peanut butter contain trans fat?

Does diversity provide anything that meritocracy does not?

Do "fields" always combine by addition?

After checking in online, how do I know whether I need to go show my passport at airport check-in?

Can I announce prefix 161.117.25.0/24 even though I don't have all of /24 IPs?

Why is Agricola named as such?

How do I append a character to the end of every line in an excel cell?

Why did Democrats in the Senate oppose the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (2019 S.130)?

Why are all my replica super soldiers young adults or old teenagers?

I have trouble understanding this fallacy: "If A, then B. Therefore if not-B, then not-A."

How does one write from a minority culture? A question on cultural references

A Missing Symbol for This Logo

Globe trotting Grandpa. Where is he going next?

How to make ice magic work from a scientific point of view?

How to visualize the Riemann-Roch theorem from complex analysis or geometric topology considerations?

Why would space fleets be aligned?

How to deal with possible delayed baggage?

How do I prevent a homebrew Grappling Hook feature from trivializing Tomb of Annihilation?

How to assess the long-term stability of a college as part of a job search

How can the probability of a fumble decrease linearly with more dice?

Hilchos Shabbos English Sefer

Is a new boolean field better than null reference when a value can be meaningfully absent?

How do you catch Smeargle in Pokemon Go?

What is a good reason for every spaceship to carry a weapon on board?

Constexpr if with a non-bool condition

Is a compiler forced to reject invalid constexpr?clang 3.3 and constexpr constraintsconstexpr bug in clang but not in gcc?Is function pointer comparison in a constexpr function allowed?When is std::string_view::operator== really constexpr?GCC and Clang disagree about C++17 constexpr lambda captures“if constexpr” interaction with “try in constexpr function” warningNested constexpr-if statement in discarded branch is still evaluated?std::variant modification in constexprC++ constexpr function in return statement

6

I seem to have found something that clang and gcc disagree on. Here's the code:

int main() {

  if constexpr (2) {}

}

This successfully compiles with gcc 7.4.0 but fails with clang 7.0.0 with this error message:

test.cpp:3:17: error: constexpr if condition evaluates to 2, which cannot be narrowed to type 'bool'

      [-Wc++11-narrowing]

  if constexpr (2) {}

                ^

1 error generated.

cppreference doesn't seem to mention "narrowing" so this seems like a clang bug but I'm not entirely certain. If this is a bug with either compiler, has it already been reported?

c++ language-lawyer c++17 implicit-conversion compiler-bug

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Kerndog73Kerndog73

572724

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  What if you do if constexpr (!!2) {} ?
  
  – Jesper Juhl
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  (!!2) will work, but 2 should work too.
  
  – ivan.ukr
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I just checked. !!2 works with clang
  
  – Kerndog73
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

I seem to have found something that clang and gcc disagree on. Here's the code:

int main() {

  if constexpr (2) {}

}

This successfully compiles with gcc 7.4.0 but fails with clang 7.0.0 with this error message:

test.cpp:3:17: error: constexpr if condition evaluates to 2, which cannot be narrowed to type 'bool'

      [-Wc++11-narrowing]

  if constexpr (2) {}

                ^

1 error generated.

cppreference doesn't seem to mention "narrowing" so this seems like a clang bug but I'm not entirely certain. If this is a bug with either compiler, has it already been reported?

c++ language-lawyer c++17 implicit-conversion compiler-bug

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Kerndog73Kerndog73

572724

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  What if you do if constexpr (!!2) {} ?
  
  – Jesper Juhl
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  (!!2) will work, but 2 should work too.
  
  – ivan.ukr
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I just checked. !!2 works with clang
  
  – Kerndog73
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

I seem to have found something that clang and gcc disagree on. Here's the code:

int main() {

  if constexpr (2) {}

}

This successfully compiles with gcc 7.4.0 but fails with clang 7.0.0 with this error message:

test.cpp:3:17: error: constexpr if condition evaluates to 2, which cannot be narrowed to type 'bool'

      [-Wc++11-narrowing]

  if constexpr (2) {}

                ^

1 error generated.

cppreference doesn't seem to mention "narrowing" so this seems like a clang bug but I'm not entirely certain. If this is a bug with either compiler, has it already been reported?

c++ language-lawyer c++17 implicit-conversion compiler-bug

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Kerndog73Kerndog73

572724

int main() {

  if constexpr (2) {}

}

test.cpp:3:17: error: constexpr if condition evaluates to 2, which cannot be narrowed to type 'bool'

      [-Wc++11-narrowing]

  if constexpr (2) {}

                ^

1 error generated.

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Kerndog73Kerndog73

572724

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Kerndog73Kerndog73

572724

asked 1 hour ago

Kerndog73Kerndog73

572724

asked 1 hour ago

Kerndog73Kerndog73

572724

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

5

Clang is diagnosing under these paragraphs

[stmt.if] (emphasis mine)

2 If the if statement is of the form if constexpr, the value of
the condition shall be a contextually converted constant expression of
type bool; this form is called a constexpr if statement.

[expr.const]

4 A converted constant expression of type T is an expression,
implicitly converted to type T, where the converted expression is a
constant expression and the implicit conversion sequence contains only

• integral conversions other than narrowing conversions,

Now, when it comes to integral conversions, a conversion to bool is listed as an integral conversion. And it is narrowing, in the strictest sense of the word, since a bool cannot represent all the values of an int. So the diagnostic is not without grounds.

But I think it's also quite reasonable to consider the fact a conversion to bool is usually intended to check for "truthiness", and so the narrowing nature of it shouldn't matter. It looks like a minor bug in the standard, with GCC taking the common-sense route, and Clang adhering to the dry letter of the law in the strictest sense.

share|improve this answer

edited 44 mins ago

answered 54 mins ago

StoryTellerStoryTeller

99.9k12201271

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  A bug in the standard! LOL
  
  – Kerndog73
  52 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  There is a proposal for this, P1401
  
  – Rakete1111
  43 secs ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

3

We say it, but it's hidden. "contextually converted constant expression of type bool" is a standard term-of-art that excludes narrowing conversions.

Clang is correct.

share|improve this answer

answered 54 mins ago

T.C.T.C.

107k14220326

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54899466%2fconstexpr-if-with-a-non-bool-condition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

5

Clang is diagnosing under these paragraphs

[stmt.if] (emphasis mine)

2 If the if statement is of the form if constexpr, the value of
the condition shall be a contextually converted constant expression of
type bool; this form is called a constexpr if statement.

[expr.const]

4 A converted constant expression of type T is an expression,
implicitly converted to type T, where the converted expression is a
constant expression and the implicit conversion sequence contains only

• integral conversions other than narrowing conversions,

Now, when it comes to integral conversions, a conversion to bool is listed as an integral conversion. And it is narrowing, in the strictest sense of the word, since a bool cannot represent all the values of an int. So the diagnostic is not without grounds.

But I think it's also quite reasonable to consider the fact a conversion to bool is usually intended to check for "truthiness", and so the narrowing nature of it shouldn't matter. It looks like a minor bug in the standard, with GCC taking the common-sense route, and Clang adhering to the dry letter of the law in the strictest sense.

share|improve this answer

edited 44 mins ago

answered 54 mins ago

StoryTellerStoryTeller

99.9k12201271

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  A bug in the standard! LOL
  
  – Kerndog73
  52 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  There is a proposal for this, P1401
  
  – Rakete1111
  43 secs ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

5

Clang is diagnosing under these paragraphs

[stmt.if] (emphasis mine)

2 If the if statement is of the form if constexpr, the value of
the condition shall be a contextually converted constant expression of
type bool; this form is called a constexpr if statement.

[expr.const]

4 A converted constant expression of type T is an expression,
implicitly converted to type T, where the converted expression is a
constant expression and the implicit conversion sequence contains only

• integral conversions other than narrowing conversions,

Now, when it comes to integral conversions, a conversion to bool is listed as an integral conversion. And it is narrowing, in the strictest sense of the word, since a bool cannot represent all the values of an int. So the diagnostic is not without grounds.

But I think it's also quite reasonable to consider the fact a conversion to bool is usually intended to check for "truthiness", and so the narrowing nature of it shouldn't matter. It looks like a minor bug in the standard, with GCC taking the common-sense route, and Clang adhering to the dry letter of the law in the strictest sense.

share|improve this answer

edited 44 mins ago

answered 54 mins ago

StoryTellerStoryTeller

99.9k12201271

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  A bug in the standard! LOL
  
  – Kerndog73
  52 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  There is a proposal for this, P1401
  
  – Rakete1111
  43 secs ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Clang is diagnosing under these paragraphs

[stmt.if] (emphasis mine)

2 If the if statement is of the form if constexpr, the value of
the condition shall be a contextually converted constant expression of
type bool; this form is called a constexpr if statement.

[expr.const]

4 A converted constant expression of type T is an expression,
implicitly converted to type T, where the converted expression is a
constant expression and the implicit conversion sequence contains only

• integral conversions other than narrowing conversions,

Now, when it comes to integral conversions, a conversion to bool is listed as an integral conversion. And it is narrowing, in the strictest sense of the word, since a bool cannot represent all the values of an int. So the diagnostic is not without grounds.

But I think it's also quite reasonable to consider the fact a conversion to bool is usually intended to check for "truthiness", and so the narrowing nature of it shouldn't matter. It looks like a minor bug in the standard, with GCC taking the common-sense route, and Clang adhering to the dry letter of the law in the strictest sense.

share|improve this answer

edited 44 mins ago

answered 54 mins ago

StoryTellerStoryTeller

99.9k12201271

share|improve this answer

edited 44 mins ago

answered 54 mins ago

StoryTellerStoryTeller

99.9k12201271

answered 54 mins ago

StoryTellerStoryTeller

99.9k12201271

answered 54 mins ago

StoryTellerStoryTeller

99.9k12201271

3

We say it, but it's hidden. "contextually converted constant expression of type bool" is a standard term-of-art that excludes narrowing conversions.

Clang is correct.

share|improve this answer

answered 54 mins ago

T.C.T.C.

107k14220326

add a comment | 

3

We say it, but it's hidden. "contextually converted constant expression of type bool" is a standard term-of-art that excludes narrowing conversions.

Clang is correct.

share|improve this answer

answered 54 mins ago

T.C.T.C.

107k14220326

add a comment | 

We say it, but it's hidden. "contextually converted constant expression of type bool" is a standard term-of-art that excludes narrowing conversions.

Clang is correct.

share|improve this answer

answered 54 mins ago

T.C.T.C.

107k14220326

share|improve this answer

answered 54 mins ago

T.C.T.C.

107k14220326

answered 54 mins ago

T.C.T.C.

107k14220326

answered 54 mins ago

T.C.T.C.

107k14220326