Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Equivalent ternary operator for constexpr if?

People also ask

What is if constexpr in C++?

This is a big one! The static-if for C++! The feature allows you to discard branches of an if statement at compile-time based on a constant expression condition.

Can a function return constexpr?

A constexpr function is a function that can be invoked within a constant expression. A constexpr function must satisfy the following conditions: It is not virtual. Its return type is a literal type.

Can you modify constexpr?

A const int var can be dynamically set to a value at runtime and once it is set to that value, it can no longer be changed. A constexpr int var cannot be dynamically set at runtime, but rather, at compile time. And once it is set to that value, it can no longer be changed.

What is constexpr function?

A constexpr function is one whose return value is computable at compile time when consuming code requires it. Consuming code requires the return value at compile time to initialize a constexpr variable, or to provide a non-type template argument.


No, there is no constexepr conditional operator. But you could wrap the whole thing in a lambda and immediately evaluate it (an IIFE):

template<typename Mode>
class BusAddress {
public:
    explicit constexpr BusAddress(Address device)
     : mAddress([&]{
          if constexpr (Mode::write) {
            return device.mDevice << 1;
          }
          else {
            return (device.mDevice << 1) | 0x01;
          }         
        }())
     { }
private:
    uint8_t mAddress = 0;    
};

It may not be the sexiest code ever, but it gets the job done. Note that lambdas are constexpr by default where possible as of N4487 and P0170.


You seem to be acting under the belief that if constexpr is a performance optimization. It isn't. If you put a constant expression in a ?: clause, any compiler worth using will figure out what it resolves to and remove the condition. So the code as you have written it will almost certainly compile down to a single option, for a particular Mode.

The principle purpose of if constexpr is to eliminate the other branch entirely. That is, the compiler doesn't even check to see if it is syntactically valid. This would be for something where you if constexpr(is_default_constructible_v<T>), and if it is true, you do T(). With a regular if statement, if T isn't default constructible, T() will still have to be syntactically valid code even if the surrounding if clause is a constant expression. if constexpr removes that requirement; the compiler will discard statements that are not in the other condition.

This becomes even more complicated for ?:, because the expression's type is based on the types of the two values. As such, both expressions need to be legal expressions, even if one of them is never evaluated. A constexpr form of ?: would presumably discard the alternative that is not taken at compile time. And therefore the expression's type should really only be based on one of them.

That a very different kind of thing.


Accepted answer can also be translated into a template function for convenience:

#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>

template <bool cond_v, typename Then, typename OrElse>
decltype(auto) constexpr_if(Then&& then, OrElse&& or_else) {
    if constexpr (cond_v) {
        return std::forward<Then>(then);
    } else {
        return std::forward<OrElse>(or_else);
    }
}

// examples

struct ModeFalse { static constexpr bool write = false; };
struct ModeTrue { static constexpr bool write = true; };

struct A {};
struct B {};

template <typename Mode>
auto&& test = constexpr_if<Mode::write>(A{}, B{});

static_assert(std::is_same_v<A&&, decltype(test<ModeTrue>)>);
static_assert(std::is_same_v<B&&, decltype(test<ModeFalse>)>);

const A a;
B b;

template <typename Mode>
auto&& test2 = constexpr_if<Mode::write>(a, b);

static_assert(std::is_same_v<const A&, decltype(test2<ModeTrue>)>);
static_assert(std::is_same_v<B&, decltype(test2<ModeFalse>)>);