On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 14:00, Lénárd Szolnoki via Std-Discussion <std-discussion@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
Hi,

It's explicitly not allowed in constexpr:

https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4868/expr.const#5.9

This is annoying, esp. if P2641 is adopted; the compiler knows which member is active, so it's just busywork for the user to iterate through them to find the one which is active. Currently:

    constexpr char t1 = __builtin_constant_p(u.a.e0) ? u.a.e0 : u.b.e0;

https://godbolt.org/z/4av4P6Y5n

Cheers,
Lénárd


On 21 October 2022 12:36:57 BST, Wilhelm Meier via Std-Discussion <std-discussion@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
HI all,

the standard explicitly makes this exception: accessing an inactive union member is not UB if the members are structs with initial common sequence.

Is this also true in a constexpr context? I ask this because the chapter for constexpr expression does not mention this exception accessing an inactive memeber.

Here is some test-code:

struct A {
char e0;
};
struct B {
char e0;
};

template<typename A, typename B>
union U {
A a;
B b;
};

int main() {
constexpr U<A, B> u{.a = {1}}; // sets member a active
constexpr char t1 = u.b.e0; // should be ok, because read via a struct with common initial sequence, but also in a constexpr context?
}
--
Wilhelm
--
Std-Discussion mailing list
Std-Discussion@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion