constexpr question, why do these two different programs run in such a different amount of time with g++?

I'm using gcc 4.6.1 and am getting some interesting behavior involving calling a constexpr function. This program runs just fine and straight away prints out 12200160415121876738.

#include <iostream>

extern const unsigned long joe;

constexpr unsigned long fib(unsigned long int x)
{
   return (x <= 1) ? 1 : (fib(x - 1) + fib(x - 2));
}

const unsigned long joe = fib(92);

int main()
{
   ::std::cout << "Here I am!\n"开发者_StackOverflow;
   ::std::cout << joe << '\n';
   return 0;
}

This program takes forever to run and I've never had the patience to wait for it to print out a value:

#include <iostream>

constexpr unsigned long fib(unsigned long int x)
{
   return (x <= 1) ? 1 : (fib(x - 1) + fib(x - 2));
}

int main()
{
   ::std::cout << "Here I am!\n";
   ::std::cout << fib(92) << '\n';
   return 0;
}

Why is there such a huge difference? Am I doing something wrong in the second program?

Edit: I'm compiling this with g++ -std=c++0x -O3 on a 64-bit platform.

---

joe is an Integral Constant Expression; it must be usable in array bounds. For that reason, a reasonable compiler will evaluate it at compile time.

In your second program, even though the compiler could calculate it at compile time, there's no reason why it must.

---

My best guess would be that program number one is had fib(92) evaluated at compile time, with lots of tables and stuff for the compiler to keep track of what values has already been evaluated... making running the program almost trivial,

Where as the second version is actually evaluated at run-time without lookup tables of evaluated constant expressions, meaning that the evaluating of fib(92) makes something like 2**92 recursive calls.

In other words the compiler does not optimize the fact that fib(92) is a constant expression.

---

There's wiggle room for the compiler to decide not to evaluate at compile time if it thinks something is "too complicated". That's in cases where it's not being absolutely forced to do the evaluation in order to generate a correct program that can actually be run (as @MSalters points out).

I thought perhaps the decision affecting compile-time laziness would be the recursion depth limit. (That's suggested in the spec as 512, but you can bump it up with the command line flag -fconstexpr-depth if you wanted it to.) But rather that would control it giving up in any cases...even when a compile time constant was necessary to run the program. So no effect on your case.

It seems if you want a guarantee in the code that it will do the optimization then you've found a technique for that. But if constexpr-depth can't help, I'm not sure if there are any relevant compiler flags otherwise...

---

I also wanted to see how gcc did optimize the code for this new constexpr keyword, and actually it's just because you are calling fib(92) as parameter of the ofstream::operator<<

::std::cout << fib(92) << '\n';

that it isn't evaluated at the compilation time, if you try calling it not as a parameter of another function (like you did in)

const unsigned long joe = fib(92);

it is evaluated at compile time, I did a blog post about this if you want more info, I don't know if this should be mentioned to gcc developers.