rsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54356#1297470, @rsmith wrote:
> Can you explain more about the justification for this? The code today has a > covered switch, which is useful for maintainability -- anyone adding a new > `Expr` node gets told they need to think about and update this code. Are > there any cases where we check for an ICE and aren't in a constant context? I > would have expected that the fact we're asking implies that we are in a > constant context (at least when the answer is "yes"). Oh, I see, you want to temporarily set "IsConstantContext" to true while evaluating the subexpression of a `ConstantExpr`. I think that's unnecessary, because anywhere we ask "is this syntactically an ICE?", we always want to evaluate as if in a constant context (unlike places where we run the evaluator on an expression, where that doesn't necessarily imply anything in particular about the nature of the expression.) Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D54356 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
