================
@@ -2922,7 +2922,7 @@ static bool handleFloatFloatBinOp(EvalInfo &Info, const
BinaryOperator *E,
// If during the evaluation of an expression, the result is not
// mathematically defined [...], the behavior is undefined.
// FIXME: C++ rules require us to not conform to IEEE 754 here.
- if (LHS.isNaN()) {
+ if (!Info.getLangOpts().CPlusPlus23 && LHS.isNaN()) {
----------------
hubert-reinterpretcast wrote:
> Do we want to do the same for C++23? If not what's exactly an "unspecified"
> value?
It means that `INT_MAX` and `INT_MIN` is fine (based on the wording). The
committee discussion had already decided that the constexpr evaluation need not
match the target's runtime in terms of implementation-defined behavior with
respect to:
- what cases are errors, and
- how non-error cases of NaNs and infinities, etc. are handled.
Instead, C's Annex F was to specify the behaviour; however, that C's Annex F
did not fully specify the result (as in the case in question) was not discussed.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88978
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
