sammccall added a comment. Most of the new diagnostics look good, as you say.
I'm okay with the regression around foreach loops, given that: - per rsmith, the mechanism behind this diagnostic was misdesigned (relying on initializer making things invalid) - it's a C++-only features and we should be able to flip on recoveryexpr for C++ soon ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp:880 constexpr Base *nullB1 = 0; -static_assert((Bottom*)nullB == 0, ""); -static_assert((Derived*)nullB == 0, ""); -static_assert((void*)(Bottom*)nullB == (void*)(Derived*)nullB, ""); +static_assert((Bottom*)nullB == 0, ""); // expected-error {{static_assert expression is not an integral constant expression}} +static_assert((Derived*)nullB == 0, ""); // expected-error {{static_assert expression is not an integral constant expression}} ---------------- I'm not *sure* what the purpose of these test is, but my guess is they're mostly trying to test nullpointer comparisons not error recovery. maybe we should have 1 with nullB and the error, and the rest use nullB1? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D78116/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D78116 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits