Quuxplusone added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:486
+ /// diagnostics
+ ConstArgs ConstantArgs;
+
----------------
Please don't use a typedef for this. Follow the style of the surrounding lines.
const APValue *ConstantArgs;
(The pointer member itself should not be `const`-qualified. Compare to `const
LValue *This;` two declarations above.)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:4520
APValue *ArgValues,
+ APValue const *const ConstantArgs,
const CXXConstructorDecl *Definition,
----------------
`const APValue *ConstantArgs,`
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:4684
- return HandleConstructorCall(E, This, ArgValues.data(), Definition,
- Info, Result);
+ ArgVector ConstantArg(ArgValues.begin(), ArgValues.end());
+ return HandleConstructorCall(E, This, ArgValues.data(), ConstantArg.data(),
----------------
Surely you meant `ConstantArgs` (plural) here.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx1y.cpp:1183
+// expected-note@+1 {{'f2(0)}}
+constexpr int a = f2(0);
----------------
Personally, I would prefer to see something as simple as my original example; I
don't think the extra 6 levels of recursion here makes the test any easier to
understand.
```
constexpr int f(int i) {
i = -i;
return 1 << i; // expected-note{{negative shift count -1}}
}
static_assert(f(1));
// expected-error@-1{{static_assert expression is not an integral constant
expression}}
// expected-note@-2{{in call to 'f(1)'}}
```
Also, procedural note: I expect you'll be asked to reupload this diff with full
context (`git diff -U999 ...`).
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60561/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60561
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
