These should probably be in different questions, but they're related so...
Why do we need to write constexpr at all? Given a set of restrictions couldn't a compiler evaluate code to see if it satisfies the constexpr requirements, and treat it as constexpr if it does? As a purely documentation keyword I'm not sure it holds up because I can't think of a case where I (the user of someone else's constexpr function) should really care if it's run time or not.
Here's my logic: If it's an expensive function I think as a matter of good practice I should treat it as such regardless of whether I give it compile-time constant input or not. That might mean calling it during load time and saving off the result, instead of calling it during a critical point in the execution. The reason is because constexpr doesn't actually guarantee to me that it will not be executed in run time in the first place — so perhaps a new/different mechanism should do that.
The constexpr restrictions seem to exclude many, if not most, functions from being compile-time evaluated which logically could be. I've read this is at least in part (or perhaps wholly?) to prevent infinite looping and hanging the compiler. But, if this is the reason, is it legitimate?
Shouldn't a compiler be able to compute if, for any given constexpr function with the given inputs used, it loops infinitely? This is not solving the halting problem for any input. The input to a constexpr function is compile time constant and finite, so the compiler only has to check for infinite looping for a finite set of input: the input actually used. It should be a regular compilation error if you write a compile-time infinite loop.
I asked a very similar question, Why do we need to mark functions as constexpr?
When I pressed Richard Smith, a Clang author, he explained:
The constexpr keyword does have utility.
It affects when a function template specialization is instantiated (constexpr function template specializations may need to be instantiated if they're called in unevaluated contexts; the same is not true for non-constexpr functions since a call to one can never be part of a constant expression). If we removed the meaning of the keyword, we'd have to instantiate a bunch more specializations early, just in case the call happens to be a constant expression.
It reduces compilation time, by limiting the set of function calls that implementations are required to try evaluating during translation. (This matters for contexts where implementations are required to try constant expression evaluation, but it's not an error if such evaluation fails -- in particular, the initializers of objects of static storage duration.)
This all didn't seem convincing at first, but if you work through the details, things do unravel without constexpr. A function need not be instantiated until it is ODR-used, which essentially means used at runtime. What is special about constexpr functions is that they can violate this rule and require instantiation anyway.
Function instantiation is a recursive procedure. Instantiating a function results in instantiation of the functions and classes it uses, regardless of the arguments to any particular call.
If something went wrong while instantiating this dependency tree (potentially at significant expense), it would be difficult to swallow the error. Furthermore, class template instantiation can have runtime side-effects.
Given an argument-dependent compile-time function call in a function signature, overload resolution may incur instantiation of function definitions merely auxiliary to the ones in the overload set, including the functions that don't even get called. Such instantiations may have side effects including ill-formedness and runtime behavior.
It's a corner case to be sure, but bad things can happen if you don't require people to opt-in to constexpr functions.
As for constexpr objects, certain types can produce core constant expressions which are usable in constant expression contexts without having been declared constexpr. But you don't really want the compiler to try evaluating every single expression at compile time. That's what constant propagation is for. On the other hand it seems pretty essential to document when something needs to happen at compile time.
[Note, I totally changed my answer]
To answer your second question, there are two cases for the compiler here:
The compiler has to be able to handle any arbitrary constexpr function(s). In this case you still have the halting problem because the set of inputs is all combinations of constexpr functions and calls to them.
The compiler can handle a finite set of constexpr function(s). In this case the compiler can in fact determine whether some programs will result in infinite loops, while other programs will be uncompilable (since they aren't in the set of valid inputs).
So presumably the restrictions are in place so that it satisfies case 2 for a reasonable amount of compiler effort.
There are both technical and ideological reasons behind this decision.
Not always do we want constexpr ourselves by default - it can take
too much compiling time. That's first. Just imagine you implemented
isPrime function and you have 100 calls with big constexpr
values passed in. I think you don't (in most cases) want to make
compiler compiling this for a couple of minutes longer because it
decided that you need those values in compile-time by itself. But if
it's exactly the case - specify constexpr modifier manually. And this adds the next point:
backward compatibility - it's unwise to assume that every possible C++98 program author who converted this program to C++11 wantsconstexpr.
The second point is that deciding if the function can be constexpr
would take compiling time by itself. And if it was trying to do that for every possible function it would take some additional time overhead. Even more, often compiler
couldn't decide if the given function can be constexpr at all, so
your first assumption is not correct.
Related
C++11 allows functions declared with the constexpr specifier to be used in constant expressions such as template arguments. There are stringent requirements about what is allowed to be constexpr; essentially such a function encapsulates only one subexpression and nothing else. (Edit: this is relaxed in C++14 but the question stands.)
Why require the keyword at all? What is gained?
It does help in revealing the intent of an interface, but it doesn't validate that intent, by guaranteeing that a function is usable in constant expressions. After writing a constexpr function, a programmer must still:
Write a test case or otherwise ensure it's actually used in a constant expression.
Document what parameter values are valid in a constant expression context.
Contrary to revealing intent, decorating functions with constexpr may add a false sense of security since tangential syntactic constraints are checked while ignoring the central semantic constraint.
In short: Would there be any undesirable effect on the language if constexpr in function declarations were merely optional? Or would there be any effect at all on any valid program?
Preventing client code expecting more than you're promising
Say I'm writing a library and have a function in there that currently returns a constant:
awesome_lib.hpp:
inline int f() { return 4; }
If constexpr wasn't required, you - as the author of client code - might go away and do something like this:
client_app.cpp:
#include <awesome_lib.hpp>
#include <array>
std::array<int, f()> my_array; // needs CT template arg
int my_c_array[f()]; // needs CT array dimension
Then should I change f() to say return the value from a config file, your client code would break, but I'd have no idea that I'd risked breaking your code. Indeed, it might be only when you have some production issue and go to recompile that you find this additional issue frustrating your rebuilding.
By changing only the implementation of f(), I'd have effectively changed the usage that could be made of the interface.
Instead, C++11 onwards provide constexpr so I can denote that client code can have a reasonable expectation of the function remaining a constexpr, and use it as such. I'm aware of and endorsing such usage as part of my interface. Just as in C++03, the compiler continues to guarantee client code isn't built to depend on other non-constexpr functions to prevent the "unwanted/unknown dependency" scenario above; that's more than documentation - it's compile time enforcement.
It's noteworthy that this continues the C++ trend of offering better alternatives for traditional uses of preprocessor macros (consider #define F 4, and how the client programmer knows whether the lib programmer considers it fair game to change to say #define F config["f"]), with their well-known "evils" such as being outside the language's namespace/class scoping system.
Why isn't there a diagnostic for "obviously" never-const functions?
I think the confusion here is due to constexpr not proactively ensuring there is any set of arguments for which the result is actually compile-time const: rather, it requires the programmer to take responsibility for that (otherwise §7.1.5/5 in the Standard deems the program ill-formed but doesn't require the compiler to issue a diagnostic). Yes, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't remove the above utility of constexpr.
So, perhaps it's helpful to switch from the question "what's the point of constexpr" to consider "why can I compile a constexpr function that can never actually return a const value?".
Answer: because there'd be a need for exhaustive branch analysis that could involve any number of combinations. It could be excessively costly in compile time and/or memory - even beyond the capability of any imaginable hardware - to diagnose. Further, even when it is practical having to diagnose such cases accurately is a whole new can of worms for compiler writers (who have better uses for their time). There would also be implications for the program such as the definition of functions called from within the constexpr function needing to be visible when the validation was performed (and functions that function calls etc.).
Meanwhile, lack of constexpr continues to forbid use as a const value: the strictness is on the sans-constexpr side. That's useful as illustrated above.
Comparison with non-`const` member functions
constexpr prevents int x[f()] while lack of const prevents const X x; x.f(); - they're both ensuring client code doesn't hardcode unwanted dependency
in both cases, you wouldn't want the compiler to determine const[expr]-ness automatically:
you wouldn't want client code to call a member function on a const object when you can already anticipate that function will evolve to modify the observable value, breaking the client code
you wouldn't want a value used as a template parameter or array dimension if you already anticipated it later being determined at runtime
they differ in that the compiler enforces const use of other members within a const member function, but does not enforce a compile-time constant result with constexpr (due to practical compiler limitations)
When I pressed Richard Smith, a Clang author, he explained:
The constexpr keyword does have utility.
It affects when a function template specialization is instantiated (constexpr function template specializations may need to be instantiated if they're called in unevaluated contexts; the same is not true for non-constexpr functions since a call to one can never be part of a constant expression). If we removed the meaning of the keyword, we'd have to instantiate a bunch more specializations early, just in case the call happens to be a constant expression.
It reduces compilation time, by limiting the set of function calls that implementations are required to try evaluating during translation. (This matters for contexts where implementations are required to try constant expression evaluation, but it's not an error if such evaluation fails -- in particular, the initializers of objects of static storage duration.)
This all didn't seem convincing at first, but if you work through the details, things do unravel without constexpr. A function need not be instantiated until it is ODR-used, which essentially means used at runtime. What is special about constexpr functions is that they can violate this rule and require instantiation anyway.
Function instantiation is a recursive procedure. Instantiating a function results in instantiation of the functions and classes it uses, regardless of the arguments to any particular call.
If something went wrong while instantiating this dependency tree (potentially at significant expense), it would be difficult to swallow the error. Furthermore, class template instantiation can have runtime side-effects.
Given an argument-dependent compile-time function call in a function signature, overload resolution may incur instantiation of function definitions merely auxiliary to the ones in the overload set, including the functions that don't even get called. Such instantiations may have side effects including ill-formedness and runtime behavior.
It's a corner case to be sure, but bad things can happen if you don't require people to opt-in to constexpr functions.
We can live without constexpr, but in certain cases it makes the code easier and intuitive.
For example we have a class which declares an array with some reference length:
template<typename T, size_t SIZE>
struct MyArray
{
T a[SIZE];
};
Conventionally you might declare MyArray as:
int a1[100];
MyArray<decltype(*a1), sizeof(a1)/sizeof(decltype(a1[0]))> obj;
Now see how it goes with constexpr:
template<typename T, size_t SIZE>
constexpr
size_t getSize (const T (&a)[SIZE]) { return SIZE; }
int a1[100];
MyArray<decltype(*a1), getSize(a1)> obj;
In short, any function (e.g. getSize(a1)) can be used as template argument only if the compiler recognizes it as constexpr.
constexpr is also used to check the negative logic. It ensures that a given object is at compile time. Here is the reference link e.g.
int i = 5;
const int j = i; // ok, but `j` is not at compile time
constexprt int k = i; // error
Without the keyword, the compiler cannot diagnose mistakes. The compiler would not be able to tell you that the function is an invalid syntactically as aconstexpr. Although you said this provides a "false sense of security", I believe it is better to pick up these errors as early as possible.
C++11 allows functions declared with the constexpr specifier to be used in constant expressions such as template arguments. There are stringent requirements about what is allowed to be constexpr; essentially such a function encapsulates only one subexpression and nothing else. (Edit: this is relaxed in C++14 but the question stands.)
Why require the keyword at all? What is gained?
It does help in revealing the intent of an interface, but it doesn't validate that intent, by guaranteeing that a function is usable in constant expressions. After writing a constexpr function, a programmer must still:
Write a test case or otherwise ensure it's actually used in a constant expression.
Document what parameter values are valid in a constant expression context.
Contrary to revealing intent, decorating functions with constexpr may add a false sense of security since tangential syntactic constraints are checked while ignoring the central semantic constraint.
In short: Would there be any undesirable effect on the language if constexpr in function declarations were merely optional? Or would there be any effect at all on any valid program?
Preventing client code expecting more than you're promising
Say I'm writing a library and have a function in there that currently returns a constant:
awesome_lib.hpp:
inline int f() { return 4; }
If constexpr wasn't required, you - as the author of client code - might go away and do something like this:
client_app.cpp:
#include <awesome_lib.hpp>
#include <array>
std::array<int, f()> my_array; // needs CT template arg
int my_c_array[f()]; // needs CT array dimension
Then should I change f() to say return the value from a config file, your client code would break, but I'd have no idea that I'd risked breaking your code. Indeed, it might be only when you have some production issue and go to recompile that you find this additional issue frustrating your rebuilding.
By changing only the implementation of f(), I'd have effectively changed the usage that could be made of the interface.
Instead, C++11 onwards provide constexpr so I can denote that client code can have a reasonable expectation of the function remaining a constexpr, and use it as such. I'm aware of and endorsing such usage as part of my interface. Just as in C++03, the compiler continues to guarantee client code isn't built to depend on other non-constexpr functions to prevent the "unwanted/unknown dependency" scenario above; that's more than documentation - it's compile time enforcement.
It's noteworthy that this continues the C++ trend of offering better alternatives for traditional uses of preprocessor macros (consider #define F 4, and how the client programmer knows whether the lib programmer considers it fair game to change to say #define F config["f"]), with their well-known "evils" such as being outside the language's namespace/class scoping system.
Why isn't there a diagnostic for "obviously" never-const functions?
I think the confusion here is due to constexpr not proactively ensuring there is any set of arguments for which the result is actually compile-time const: rather, it requires the programmer to take responsibility for that (otherwise §7.1.5/5 in the Standard deems the program ill-formed but doesn't require the compiler to issue a diagnostic). Yes, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't remove the above utility of constexpr.
So, perhaps it's helpful to switch from the question "what's the point of constexpr" to consider "why can I compile a constexpr function that can never actually return a const value?".
Answer: because there'd be a need for exhaustive branch analysis that could involve any number of combinations. It could be excessively costly in compile time and/or memory - even beyond the capability of any imaginable hardware - to diagnose. Further, even when it is practical having to diagnose such cases accurately is a whole new can of worms for compiler writers (who have better uses for their time). There would also be implications for the program such as the definition of functions called from within the constexpr function needing to be visible when the validation was performed (and functions that function calls etc.).
Meanwhile, lack of constexpr continues to forbid use as a const value: the strictness is on the sans-constexpr side. That's useful as illustrated above.
Comparison with non-`const` member functions
constexpr prevents int x[f()] while lack of const prevents const X x; x.f(); - they're both ensuring client code doesn't hardcode unwanted dependency
in both cases, you wouldn't want the compiler to determine const[expr]-ness automatically:
you wouldn't want client code to call a member function on a const object when you can already anticipate that function will evolve to modify the observable value, breaking the client code
you wouldn't want a value used as a template parameter or array dimension if you already anticipated it later being determined at runtime
they differ in that the compiler enforces const use of other members within a const member function, but does not enforce a compile-time constant result with constexpr (due to practical compiler limitations)
When I pressed Richard Smith, a Clang author, he explained:
The constexpr keyword does have utility.
It affects when a function template specialization is instantiated (constexpr function template specializations may need to be instantiated if they're called in unevaluated contexts; the same is not true for non-constexpr functions since a call to one can never be part of a constant expression). If we removed the meaning of the keyword, we'd have to instantiate a bunch more specializations early, just in case the call happens to be a constant expression.
It reduces compilation time, by limiting the set of function calls that implementations are required to try evaluating during translation. (This matters for contexts where implementations are required to try constant expression evaluation, but it's not an error if such evaluation fails -- in particular, the initializers of objects of static storage duration.)
This all didn't seem convincing at first, but if you work through the details, things do unravel without constexpr. A function need not be instantiated until it is ODR-used, which essentially means used at runtime. What is special about constexpr functions is that they can violate this rule and require instantiation anyway.
Function instantiation is a recursive procedure. Instantiating a function results in instantiation of the functions and classes it uses, regardless of the arguments to any particular call.
If something went wrong while instantiating this dependency tree (potentially at significant expense), it would be difficult to swallow the error. Furthermore, class template instantiation can have runtime side-effects.
Given an argument-dependent compile-time function call in a function signature, overload resolution may incur instantiation of function definitions merely auxiliary to the ones in the overload set, including the functions that don't even get called. Such instantiations may have side effects including ill-formedness and runtime behavior.
It's a corner case to be sure, but bad things can happen if you don't require people to opt-in to constexpr functions.
We can live without constexpr, but in certain cases it makes the code easier and intuitive.
For example we have a class which declares an array with some reference length:
template<typename T, size_t SIZE>
struct MyArray
{
T a[SIZE];
};
Conventionally you might declare MyArray as:
int a1[100];
MyArray<decltype(*a1), sizeof(a1)/sizeof(decltype(a1[0]))> obj;
Now see how it goes with constexpr:
template<typename T, size_t SIZE>
constexpr
size_t getSize (const T (&a)[SIZE]) { return SIZE; }
int a1[100];
MyArray<decltype(*a1), getSize(a1)> obj;
In short, any function (e.g. getSize(a1)) can be used as template argument only if the compiler recognizes it as constexpr.
constexpr is also used to check the negative logic. It ensures that a given object is at compile time. Here is the reference link e.g.
int i = 5;
const int j = i; // ok, but `j` is not at compile time
constexprt int k = i; // error
Without the keyword, the compiler cannot diagnose mistakes. The compiler would not be able to tell you that the function is an invalid syntactically as aconstexpr. Although you said this provides a "false sense of security", I believe it is better to pick up these errors as early as possible.
C++11 allows functions declared with the constexpr specifier to be used in constant expressions such as template arguments. There are stringent requirements about what is allowed to be constexpr; essentially such a function encapsulates only one subexpression and nothing else. (Edit: this is relaxed in C++14 but the question stands.)
Why require the keyword at all? What is gained?
It does help in revealing the intent of an interface, but it doesn't validate that intent, by guaranteeing that a function is usable in constant expressions. After writing a constexpr function, a programmer must still:
Write a test case or otherwise ensure it's actually used in a constant expression.
Document what parameter values are valid in a constant expression context.
Contrary to revealing intent, decorating functions with constexpr may add a false sense of security since tangential syntactic constraints are checked while ignoring the central semantic constraint.
In short: Would there be any undesirable effect on the language if constexpr in function declarations were merely optional? Or would there be any effect at all on any valid program?
Preventing client code expecting more than you're promising
Say I'm writing a library and have a function in there that currently returns a constant:
awesome_lib.hpp:
inline int f() { return 4; }
If constexpr wasn't required, you - as the author of client code - might go away and do something like this:
client_app.cpp:
#include <awesome_lib.hpp>
#include <array>
std::array<int, f()> my_array; // needs CT template arg
int my_c_array[f()]; // needs CT array dimension
Then should I change f() to say return the value from a config file, your client code would break, but I'd have no idea that I'd risked breaking your code. Indeed, it might be only when you have some production issue and go to recompile that you find this additional issue frustrating your rebuilding.
By changing only the implementation of f(), I'd have effectively changed the usage that could be made of the interface.
Instead, C++11 onwards provide constexpr so I can denote that client code can have a reasonable expectation of the function remaining a constexpr, and use it as such. I'm aware of and endorsing such usage as part of my interface. Just as in C++03, the compiler continues to guarantee client code isn't built to depend on other non-constexpr functions to prevent the "unwanted/unknown dependency" scenario above; that's more than documentation - it's compile time enforcement.
It's noteworthy that this continues the C++ trend of offering better alternatives for traditional uses of preprocessor macros (consider #define F 4, and how the client programmer knows whether the lib programmer considers it fair game to change to say #define F config["f"]), with their well-known "evils" such as being outside the language's namespace/class scoping system.
Why isn't there a diagnostic for "obviously" never-const functions?
I think the confusion here is due to constexpr not proactively ensuring there is any set of arguments for which the result is actually compile-time const: rather, it requires the programmer to take responsibility for that (otherwise §7.1.5/5 in the Standard deems the program ill-formed but doesn't require the compiler to issue a diagnostic). Yes, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't remove the above utility of constexpr.
So, perhaps it's helpful to switch from the question "what's the point of constexpr" to consider "why can I compile a constexpr function that can never actually return a const value?".
Answer: because there'd be a need for exhaustive branch analysis that could involve any number of combinations. It could be excessively costly in compile time and/or memory - even beyond the capability of any imaginable hardware - to diagnose. Further, even when it is practical having to diagnose such cases accurately is a whole new can of worms for compiler writers (who have better uses for their time). There would also be implications for the program such as the definition of functions called from within the constexpr function needing to be visible when the validation was performed (and functions that function calls etc.).
Meanwhile, lack of constexpr continues to forbid use as a const value: the strictness is on the sans-constexpr side. That's useful as illustrated above.
Comparison with non-`const` member functions
constexpr prevents int x[f()] while lack of const prevents const X x; x.f(); - they're both ensuring client code doesn't hardcode unwanted dependency
in both cases, you wouldn't want the compiler to determine const[expr]-ness automatically:
you wouldn't want client code to call a member function on a const object when you can already anticipate that function will evolve to modify the observable value, breaking the client code
you wouldn't want a value used as a template parameter or array dimension if you already anticipated it later being determined at runtime
they differ in that the compiler enforces const use of other members within a const member function, but does not enforce a compile-time constant result with constexpr (due to practical compiler limitations)
When I pressed Richard Smith, a Clang author, he explained:
The constexpr keyword does have utility.
It affects when a function template specialization is instantiated (constexpr function template specializations may need to be instantiated if they're called in unevaluated contexts; the same is not true for non-constexpr functions since a call to one can never be part of a constant expression). If we removed the meaning of the keyword, we'd have to instantiate a bunch more specializations early, just in case the call happens to be a constant expression.
It reduces compilation time, by limiting the set of function calls that implementations are required to try evaluating during translation. (This matters for contexts where implementations are required to try constant expression evaluation, but it's not an error if such evaluation fails -- in particular, the initializers of objects of static storage duration.)
This all didn't seem convincing at first, but if you work through the details, things do unravel without constexpr. A function need not be instantiated until it is ODR-used, which essentially means used at runtime. What is special about constexpr functions is that they can violate this rule and require instantiation anyway.
Function instantiation is a recursive procedure. Instantiating a function results in instantiation of the functions and classes it uses, regardless of the arguments to any particular call.
If something went wrong while instantiating this dependency tree (potentially at significant expense), it would be difficult to swallow the error. Furthermore, class template instantiation can have runtime side-effects.
Given an argument-dependent compile-time function call in a function signature, overload resolution may incur instantiation of function definitions merely auxiliary to the ones in the overload set, including the functions that don't even get called. Such instantiations may have side effects including ill-formedness and runtime behavior.
It's a corner case to be sure, but bad things can happen if you don't require people to opt-in to constexpr functions.
We can live without constexpr, but in certain cases it makes the code easier and intuitive.
For example we have a class which declares an array with some reference length:
template<typename T, size_t SIZE>
struct MyArray
{
T a[SIZE];
};
Conventionally you might declare MyArray as:
int a1[100];
MyArray<decltype(*a1), sizeof(a1)/sizeof(decltype(a1[0]))> obj;
Now see how it goes with constexpr:
template<typename T, size_t SIZE>
constexpr
size_t getSize (const T (&a)[SIZE]) { return SIZE; }
int a1[100];
MyArray<decltype(*a1), getSize(a1)> obj;
In short, any function (e.g. getSize(a1)) can be used as template argument only if the compiler recognizes it as constexpr.
constexpr is also used to check the negative logic. It ensures that a given object is at compile time. Here is the reference link e.g.
int i = 5;
const int j = i; // ok, but `j` is not at compile time
constexprt int k = i; // error
Without the keyword, the compiler cannot diagnose mistakes. The compiler would not be able to tell you that the function is an invalid syntactically as aconstexpr. Although you said this provides a "false sense of security", I believe it is better to pick up these errors as early as possible.
As you probably know, C++11 introduces the constexpr keyword.
C++11 introduced the keyword constexpr, which allows the user to
guarantee that a function or object constructor is a compile-time
constant.
[...]
This allows the compiler to understand, and verify, that [function name] is a
compile-time constant.
My question is why are there such strict restrictions on form of the functions that can be declared. I understand desire to guarantee that function is pure, but consider this:
The use of constexpr on a function imposes some limitations on what
that function can do. First, the function must have a non-void return
type. Second, the function body cannot declare variables or define new
types. Third, the body may only contain declarations, null statements
and a single return statement. There must exist argument values such
that, after argument substitution, the expression in the return
statement produces a constant expression.
That means that this pure function is illegal:
constexpr int maybeInCppC1Y(int a, int b)
{
if (a>0)
return a+b;
else
return a-b;
//can be written as return (a>0) ? (a+b):(a-b); but that isnt the point
}
Also you cant define local variables... :(
So I'm wondering is this a design decision, or do compilers suck when it comes to proving function a is pure?
The reason you'd need to write statements instead of expressions is that you want to take advantage of the additional capabilities of statements, particularly the ability to loop. But to be useful, that would require the ability to declare variables (also banned).
If you combine a facility for looping, with mutable variables, with logical branching (as in if statements) then you have the ability to create infinite loops. It is not possible to determine if such a loop will ever terminate (the halting problem). Thus some sources would cause the compiler to hang.
By using recursive pure functions it is possible to cause infinite recursion, which can be shown to be equivalently powerful to the looping capabilities described above. However, C++ already has that problem at compile time - it occurs with template expansion - and so compilers already have to have a switch for "template stack depth" so they know when to give up.
So the restrictions seem designed to ensure that this problem (of determining if a C++ compilation will ever finish) doesn't get any thornier than it already is.
The rules for constexpr functions are designed such that it's impossible to write a constexpr function that has any side-effects.
By requiring constexpr to have no side-effects it becomes impossible for a user to determine where/when it was actually evaluated. This is important since constexpr functions are allowed to happen at both compile time and run time at the discretion of the compiler.
If side-effects were allowed then there would need to be some rules about the order in which they would be observed. That would be incredibly difficult to define - even harder than the static initialisation order problem.
A relatively simple set of rules for guaranteeing these functions to be side-effect free is to require that they be just a single expression (with a few extra restrictions on top of that). This sounds limiting initially and rules out the if statement as you noted. Whilst that particular case would have no side-effects it would have introduced extra complexity into the rules and given that you can write the same things using the ternary operator or recursively it's not really a huge deal.
n2235 is the paper that proposed the constexpr addition in C++. It discusses the rational for the design - the relevant quote seems to be this one from a discussion on destructors, but relevant generally:
The reason is that a constant-expression is intended to be evaluated by the compiler
at translation time just like any other literal of built-in type; in particular no
observable side-effect is permitted.
Interestingly the paper also mentions that a previous proposal suggested the the compiler figured out automatically which functions were constexpr without the new keyword, but this was found to be unworkably complex, which seems to support my suggestion that the rules were designed to be simple.
(I suspect there will be other quotes in the references cited in the paper, but this covers the key point of my argument about the no side-effects)
Actually the C++ standardization committee is thinking about removing several of these constraints for c++14. See the following working document http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2013/n3597.html
The restrictions could certainly be lifted quite a bit without enabling code which cannot be executed during compile time, or which cannot be proven to always halt. However I guess it wasn't done because
it would complicate the compiler for minimal gain. C++ compilers are quite complex as is
specifying exactly how much is allowed without violating the restrictions above would have been time consuming, and given that desired features have been postponed in order to get the standard out of the door, there probably was little incentive to add more work (and further delay of the standard) for little gain
some of the restrictions would have been either rather arbitrary or rather complicated (especially on loops, given that C++ doesn't have the concept of a native incrementing for loop, but both the end condition and the increment code have to be explicitly specified in the for statement, making it possible to use arbitrary expressions for them)
Of course, only a member of the standards committee could give an authoritative answer whether my assumptions are correct.
I think constexpr is just for const objects. I mean; you can now have static const objects like String::empty_string constructs statically(without hacking!). This may reduce time before 'main' called. And static const objects may have functions like .length(), operator==,... so this is why 'expr' is needed. In 'C' you can create static constant structs like below:
static const Foos foo = { .a = 1, .b = 2, };
Linux kernel has tons of this type classes. In c++ you could do this now with constexpr.
note: I dunno but code below should not be accepted so like if version:
constexpr int maybeInCppC1Y(int a, int b) { return (a > 0) ? (a + b) : (a - b); }
Any function that consists of a return statement only could be declared
constexpr and thus will allow to be evaluated at compile time if all
arguments are constexpr and only constexpr functions are called in its body. Is there any reason not to declare any such function constexpr ?
Example:
constexpr int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
constexpr i = 10;
static_assert(sum(i, 13) == 23, "sum correct");
Could anyone provide an example where declaring a function constexpr
would do any harm?
Some initial thoughts:
Even if there should be no good reason for ever declaring a function
not constexpr I could imagine that the constexpr keyword has a
transitional role: its absence in code that does not need compile-time
evaluations would allow compilers that do not implement compile-time
evaluations still to compile that code (but to fail reliably on code
that needs them as made explict by using constexpr).
But what I do not understand: if there should be no good reason for
ever declaring a function not constexpr, why is not every function
in the standard library declared constexpr? (You cannot argue
that it is not done yet because there was not sufficient time yet to
do it, because doing it for all is a no-brainer -- contrary to deciding for every single function if to make it constexpr or not.)
--- I am aware that N2976
deliberately not requires cstrs for many standard library types such
as the containers as this would be too limitating for possible
implementations. Lets exclude them from the argument and just wonder:
once a type in the standard library actually has a constexpr cstr, why is not every function operating on it declared constexpr?
In most cases you also cannot argue that you may prefer not to declare a function constexpr simply because you do not envisage any compile-time usage: because if others evtl. will use your code, they may see such a use that you do not. (But granted for type trait types and stuff alike, of course.)
So I guess there must be a good reason and a good example for deliberately not declaring a function constexpr?
(with "every function" I always mean: every function that meets the
requirements for being constexpr, i.e., is defined as a single
return statement, takes only arguments of types with constexpr
cstrs and calls only constexpr functions. Since C++14, much more is allowed in the body of such function: e.g., C++14 constexpr functions may use local variables and loops, so an even wider class of functions could be declared constexpr.)
The question Why does std::forward discard constexpr-ness? is a special case of this one.
Functions can only be declared constexpr if they obey the rules for constexpr --- no dynamic casts, no memory allocation, no calls to non-constexpr functions, etc.
Declaring a function in the standard library as constexpr requires that ALL implementations obey those rules.
Firstly, this requires checking for each function that it can be implemented as constexpr, which is a long job.
Secondly, this is a big constraint on the implementations, and will outlaw many debugging implementations. It is therefore only worth it if the benefits outweigh the costs, or the requirements are sufficiently tight that the implementation pretty much has to obey the constexpr rules anyway. Making this evaluation for each function is again a long job.
I think what you're referring to is called partial evaluation. What you're touching on is that some programs can be split into two parts - a piece that requires runtime information, and a piece that can be done without any runtime information - and that in theory you could just fully evaluate the part of the program that doesn't need any runtime information before you even start running the program. There are some programming languages that do this. For example, the D programming language has an interpreter built into the compiler that lets you execute code at compile-time, provided that it meets certain restrictions.
There are a few main challenges in getting partial evaluation working. First, it dramatically complicates the logic of the compiler because the compiler will need to have the ability to simulate all of the operations that you could put into an executable program at compile-time. This, in the worst case, requires you to have a full interpreter inside of the compiler, making a difficult problem (writing a good C++ compiler) and making it orders of magnitude harder to do.
I believe that the reason for the current specification about constexpr is simply to limit the complexity of compilers. The cases it's limited to are fairly simple to check. There's no need to implement loops in the compiler (which could cause a whole other slew of problems, like what happens if you get an infinite loop inside the compiler). It also avoids the compiler potentially having to evaluate statements that could cause segfaults at runtime, such as following a bad pointer.
Another consideration to keep in mind is that some functions have side-effects, such as reading from cin or opening a network connection. Functions like these fundamentally can't be optimized at compile-time, since doing so would require knowledge only available at runtime.
To summarize, there's no theoretical reason you couldn't partially evaluate C++ programs at compile-time. In fact, people do this all the time. Optimizing compilers, for example, are essentially programs that try to do this as much as possible. Template metaprogramming is one instance where C++ programmers try to execute code inside the compiler, and it's possible to do some great things with templates partially because the rules for templates form a functional language, which the compiler has an easier time implementing. Moreover, if you think of the tradeoff between compiler author hours and programming hours, template metaprogramming shows that if you're okay making programmers bend over backwards to get what they want, you can build a pretty weak language (the template system) and keep the language complexity simple. (I say "weak" as in "not particularly expressive," not "weak" in the computability theory sense).
Hope this helps!
If the function has side effects, you would not want to mark it constexpr. Example
I can't get any unexpected results from that, actually it looks like gcc 4.5.1 just ignores constexpr