cor3ntin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/dcl.dcl/dcl.spec/dcl.constexpr/p3-2b.cpp:17-22
+constexpr int g() { // expected-error {{constexpr function never produces a
constant expression}}
+ goto test; // expected-note {{subexpression not valid in a constant
expression}} \
+ // expected-warning {{use of this statement in a constexpr function
is incompatible with C++ standards before C++2b}}
+test:
+ return 0;
+}
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> Still trying to make the choice of tests consistent between the different
> cases (static local variable, goto statement, etc.) and consistent within
> files...
>
> The test that is here (function will unconditionally evaluate) seems to
> belong in `constant-expression-cxx2b.cpp`... or at least that is where the
> equivalent tests for the static local variable case, etc. is (and correctly,
> I think).
>
> The test that should be here is the "conditionally will evaluate" case where
> the function is not called. That is, this file has tests that check that the
> warnings are produced purely from the definition being present.
I'm not sure I understand. No call is made in that file.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/dcl.dcl/dcl.spec/dcl.constexpr/p3-2b.cpp:16
+}
+
+constexpr int f(int x) {
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> Add a `NonLiteral` case and a case with a labelled statement and no `goto`?
These tests exist in that same file
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/dcl.dcl/dcl.spec/dcl.constexpr/p3.cpp:1-3
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -fcxx-exceptions -triple=x86_64-linux-gnu
-std=c++11 -Werror=c++14-extensions -Werror=c++20-extensions
-Werror=c++2b-extensions %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -fcxx-exceptions -triple=x86_64-linux-gnu
-std=c++14 -DCXX14 -Werror=c++20-extensions -Werror=c++2b-extensions %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -fcxx-exceptions -triple=x86_64-linux-gnu
-std=c++20 -DCXX14 -DCXX20 -Werror=c++2b-extensions %s
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > cor3ntin wrote:
> > > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > > > The use `-Werror` hides potential issues where the error is
> > > > categorically produced (instead of under the warning group).
> > > >
> > > > Considering that there is a relevant design consistency issue of
> > > > exactly that sort right now that this test could have highlighted (but
> > > > didn't), a change to stop using `-Werror` may be prudent.
> > > This seems inconsistent with how that file is currently structured though
> > I meant to change the entire file to check for warnings instead of errors.
> > I guess that really should be a separate patch.
> I guess the change will cause the "never produces a constant expression"
> warning unless if that is suppressed with `-Wno-invalid-constexpr`.
Yes, we could cleanup this entire file to get rid of the #ifdef, then change
how warnings are diagnosed.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx2b.cpp:96-123
+int test_in_lambdas() {
+ auto a = [] constexpr { // expected-error{{constexpr function never
produces a constant expression}}
+ static const int m = 32; // expected-note {{control flows through the
declaration of a static variable}} \
+ // expected-warning {{incompatible with C++
standards before C++2b}}
+ return m;
+ };
+
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> I think it would be more meaningful to have the explicitly `constexpr` lambda
> tests in the file (see comment on the later code below) that also runs under
> C++20 mode. The tests should be structured to demonstrate that the explicitly
> `constexpr` lambdas are usable in constant expression evaluation even in
> older modes.
That would just test the extension warnings which we already tests a bunch of
time. I'm willing to add more tests but I question whether it would had any
value
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111400/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111400
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
