Of course I want consteval, if a later C++ is available to me, but that doesn't excuse you writing constexpr does absolutely nothing, when it clearly does. It's no surprise your example doesn't fold calls without `-O3` or that one could produce a `constexpr` that doesn't fold to a constant (go ahead and try though :>).
But consteval function is also not a literal replacement constexpr. For example, you can't take a pointer to the former. There's a reason they co-exist and are not useless.
But consteval function is also not a literal replacement constexpr. For example, you can't take a pointer to the former. There's a reason they co-exist and are not useless.