aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp:14290
return MaybeBindToTemporary(call);
}
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > Was this one missed too?
> > > I couldn't devise a test case that was failing with member function call
> > > expressions, so I left this one alone. We have a bunch of existing test
> > > coverage for calling a consteval member function, so I'm assuming this is
> > > correct, but if someone finds a test case that fails here, it's easy
> > > enough to fix.
> > This code is only reachable for a call through a pointer-to-member. We
> > don't need to worry about `consteval` member function pointers because they
> > can't escape constant-evaluated contexts anyway. Eg,
> > `(p->*&Class::consteval_fn)()` is ill-formed outside of a
> > constant-evaluated context -- we should make sure we have a test for that.
> I can't come up with one either, I think we're fine for now.
```
struct test {
consteval int f() const { return 12; }
};
constexpr test t;
int main() {
constexpr int i = (t.*&test::f)();
}
```
@rsmith -- would you expect us to accept or reject this? GCC accepts, MSVC
rejects, Clang currently rejects. This is different from your test case
(because this is in a constant evaluated context), which we do already reject
with a decent message: https://godbolt.org/z/3nv4bco9M
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111817/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111817
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
