Ttyjukl

Floor tile layout process?

Pigeonhole Principle Problem

Was Hulk present at this funeral?

How can I close a gap between my fence and my neighbor's that's on his side of the property line?

Is balancing necessary on a full-wheel change?

Game of Life meets Chaos Theory

You look catfish vs You look like a catfish?

Short story about people living in a different time streams

What word means "to make something obsolete"?

Is it cheaper to drop cargo than to land it?

Can fracking help reduce CO2?

Field Length Validation for Desktop Application which has maximum 1000 characters

If I supply 24v to a 50v rated 22000uf electrolytic capacitor, does that mean it will store 44000uf at 24v?

Entropy as a function of temperature: is temperature well defined?

Unidentified items in bicycle tube repair kit

A non-technological, repeating, visible object in the sky, holding its position in the sky for hours

What is the most remote airport from the center of the city it supposedly serves?

Geometry - Proving a common centroid.

Does hiding behind 5-ft-wide cover give full cover?

How could a planet have most of its water in the atmosphere?

Accidentally deleted the "/usr/share" folder

Is it appropriate to refer to God as "It"?

How to efficiently calculate prefix sum of frequencies of characters in a string?

What are the spoon bit of a spoon and fork bit of a fork called?

if constexpr branch does not get discarded inside lambda that is inside a template function

Possible to instantiate templates using a for loop in a C++14 constexpr function?Calling `this` member function from generic lambda - clang vs gccSFINAE constexpr with std::getShould decltype(foo(1)) instantiate the constexpr function template foo?Why can't lambda, when cast to function pointer, be used in constexpr context?Can constexpr-if-else bodies return different types in constexpr auto function?False-branch of if constexpr not discarded in templated lambdaNested constexpr-if statement in discarded branch is still evaluated?Using a constexpr static member of a reference as template argumentConstexpr static member function usage

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}

16

4

The following code:

#include <type_traits>



struct X {

    static constexpr void x() {}

};



template <class T1, class T2>

constexpr bool makeFalse() { return false; }



template <class T>

void foo() {

    T tmp;

    auto f = [](auto type) {

        if constexpr (makeFalse<T, decltype(type)>()) {

            T::x(); // <- clang does not discard

        } else {

            // noop

        }

    };

}



int main() {

    foo<int>();

}

does not compile with Clang, but compiles with GCC. I can't see anything wrong with this code but I'm not sure. Is Clang right not compiling it?

c++ c++17 if-constexpr

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

Nicol Bolas

293k34484661

asked 4 hours ago

nicolainicolai

326211

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  worth mentioning that T is not dependant on the lambda template parameter. Don't know however how if constexpr should handle that.
  
  – bolov
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  (somewhat) equivalent example without lambda compiles fine , so I suspect it's a clang bug godbolt.org/z/Xok1wC
  
  – bolov
  4 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @bolov if you remove the generic lambda, it compiles too: godbolt.org/z/xoTBT6
  
  – Amadeus
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

16

4

The following code:

#include <type_traits>



struct X {

    static constexpr void x() {}

};



template <class T1, class T2>

constexpr bool makeFalse() { return false; }



template <class T>

void foo() {

    T tmp;

    auto f = [](auto type) {

        if constexpr (makeFalse<T, decltype(type)>()) {

            T::x(); // <- clang does not discard

        } else {

            // noop

        }

    };

}



int main() {

    foo<int>();

}

does not compile with Clang, but compiles with GCC. I can't see anything wrong with this code but I'm not sure. Is Clang right not compiling it?

c++ c++17 if-constexpr

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

Nicol Bolas

293k34484661

asked 4 hours ago

nicolainicolai

326211

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  worth mentioning that T is not dependant on the lambda template parameter. Don't know however how if constexpr should handle that.
  
  – bolov
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  (somewhat) equivalent example without lambda compiles fine , so I suspect it's a clang bug godbolt.org/z/Xok1wC
  
  – bolov
  4 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @bolov if you remove the generic lambda, it compiles too: godbolt.org/z/xoTBT6
  
  – Amadeus
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

The following code:

#include <type_traits>



struct X {

    static constexpr void x() {}

};



template <class T1, class T2>

constexpr bool makeFalse() { return false; }



template <class T>

void foo() {

    T tmp;

    auto f = [](auto type) {

        if constexpr (makeFalse<T, decltype(type)>()) {

            T::x(); // <- clang does not discard

        } else {

            // noop

        }

    };

}



int main() {

    foo<int>();

}

does not compile with Clang, but compiles with GCC. I can't see anything wrong with this code but I'm not sure. Is Clang right not compiling it?

c++ c++17 if-constexpr

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

Nicol Bolas

293k34484661

asked 4 hours ago

nicolainicolai

326211

#include <type_traits>



struct X {

    static constexpr void x() {}

};



template <class T1, class T2>

constexpr bool makeFalse() { return false; }



template <class T>

void foo() {

    T tmp;

    auto f = [](auto type) {

        if constexpr (makeFalse<T, decltype(type)>()) {

            T::x(); // <- clang does not discard

        } else {

            // noop

        }

    };

}



int main() {

    foo<int>();

}

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

Nicol Bolas

293k34484661

asked 4 hours ago

nicolainicolai

326211

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

Nicol Bolas

293k34484661

asked 4 hours ago

nicolainicolai

326211

edited 4 hours ago

Nicol Bolas

293k34484661

edited 4 hours ago

Nicol Bolas

293k34484661

asked 4 hours ago

nicolainicolai

326211

asked 4 hours ago

nicolainicolai

326211

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

9

[stmt.if]/2:

During the instantiation of an enclosing templated entity, if the condition is not value-dependent after its instantiation, the discarded substatement (if any) is not instantiated.

Since makeFalse<T, decltype(type)>() is value-dependent after the instantiation of foo<int>, it appears that T::x() should be instantiated per the standard, and since T::x is ill-formed when T is int, Clang is right not compiling it.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

cpplearnercpplearner

6,22122543

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Wouldn't this reasoning imply that a hypothetical if constexpr (makeFalse<decltype(type)>) { type.x(); } would not be discarded either?
  
  – Barry
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Barry Yes. But type.x() is a dependent and possibly valid expression after the instantiation.
  
  – cpplearner
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I think "possibly valid" is muddling things, I don't think that's relevant necessarily. Are you saying it won't be discarded even if makeFalse<decltype(type)> is false? Assume it's actually an interesting check... more like if constexpr (can_x<decltype(type)>) { type.x(); }
  
  – Barry
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I am not convinced. Why then are my example and Amadeus compiling?
  
  – bolov
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Barry Let me try to clarify. There are two instantiations that can be involved: (1) the instantiation of foo (2) the instantiation of f's function call operator template (which does not happen in OP's example). (1) does not discard either branch, because the condition is still value-dependent after it. If either branch is ill-formed after (1), an error will occur (but [temp.res]/8 may kick in when an expression in a branch is dependent). (2) does discard one branch because the condition is no longer dependent.
  
  – cpplearner
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more 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%2f55909018%2fif-constexpr-branch-does-not-get-discarded-inside-lambda-that-is-inside-a-templa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

9

[stmt.if]/2:

During the instantiation of an enclosing templated entity, if the condition is not value-dependent after its instantiation, the discarded substatement (if any) is not instantiated.

Since makeFalse<T, decltype(type)>() is value-dependent after the instantiation of foo<int>, it appears that T::x() should be instantiated per the standard, and since T::x is ill-formed when T is int, Clang is right not compiling it.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

cpplearnercpplearner

6,22122543

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Wouldn't this reasoning imply that a hypothetical if constexpr (makeFalse<decltype(type)>) { type.x(); } would not be discarded either?
  
  – Barry
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Barry Yes. But type.x() is a dependent and possibly valid expression after the instantiation.
  
  – cpplearner
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I think "possibly valid" is muddling things, I don't think that's relevant necessarily. Are you saying it won't be discarded even if makeFalse<decltype(type)> is false? Assume it's actually an interesting check... more like if constexpr (can_x<decltype(type)>) { type.x(); }
  
  – Barry
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I am not convinced. Why then are my example and Amadeus compiling?
  
  – bolov
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Barry Let me try to clarify. There are two instantiations that can be involved: (1) the instantiation of foo (2) the instantiation of f's function call operator template (which does not happen in OP's example). (1) does not discard either branch, because the condition is still value-dependent after it. If either branch is ill-formed after (1), an error will occur (but [temp.res]/8 may kick in when an expression in a branch is dependent). (2) does discard one branch because the condition is no longer dependent.
  
  – cpplearner
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

9

[stmt.if]/2:

During the instantiation of an enclosing templated entity, if the condition is not value-dependent after its instantiation, the discarded substatement (if any) is not instantiated.

Since makeFalse<T, decltype(type)>() is value-dependent after the instantiation of foo<int>, it appears that T::x() should be instantiated per the standard, and since T::x is ill-formed when T is int, Clang is right not compiling it.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

cpplearnercpplearner

6,22122543

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Wouldn't this reasoning imply that a hypothetical if constexpr (makeFalse<decltype(type)>) { type.x(); } would not be discarded either?
  
  – Barry
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Barry Yes. But type.x() is a dependent and possibly valid expression after the instantiation.
  
  – cpplearner
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I think "possibly valid" is muddling things, I don't think that's relevant necessarily. Are you saying it won't be discarded even if makeFalse<decltype(type)> is false? Assume it's actually an interesting check... more like if constexpr (can_x<decltype(type)>) { type.x(); }
  
  – Barry
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I am not convinced. Why then are my example and Amadeus compiling?
  
  – bolov
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Barry Let me try to clarify. There are two instantiations that can be involved: (1) the instantiation of foo (2) the instantiation of f's function call operator template (which does not happen in OP's example). (1) does not discard either branch, because the condition is still value-dependent after it. If either branch is ill-formed after (1), an error will occur (but [temp.res]/8 may kick in when an expression in a branch is dependent). (2) does discard one branch because the condition is no longer dependent.
  
  – cpplearner
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

[stmt.if]/2:

During the instantiation of an enclosing templated entity, if the condition is not value-dependent after its instantiation, the discarded substatement (if any) is not instantiated.

Since makeFalse<T, decltype(type)>() is value-dependent after the instantiation of foo<int>, it appears that T::x() should be instantiated per the standard, and since T::x is ill-formed when T is int, Clang is right not compiling it.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

cpplearnercpplearner

6,22122543

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

cpplearnercpplearner

6,22122543

answered 4 hours ago

cpplearnercpplearner

6,22122543

answered 4 hours ago

cpplearnercpplearner

6,22122543