Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Are there any conformant C compilers?
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 08:10:04 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <86zgfss6k3.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <te6n25$16ga$1@gioia.aioe.org> <d3626730-882e-4ead-8321-85903aa68217n@googlegroups.com> <te8111$11ga$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="47033263159f9906c2d32cb2ca0d14b9"; logging-data="3863218"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197dA7QyLHiW+4Lxfgy5mHgmoTJ/mBQN8Q="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eGZ3J5MnWYeCttJ443GS4yTNJHU= sha1:OM28EWi086WaPPqqTxx3hwnS75Y=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:167212

antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes:

> IMO main problem with 'constexpr' is that
> it is quite limited.

If constexpr functions are allowed, constexpr is
Turing complete, is it not?