rsmith added a comment.
I don't see how this approach can work; the fact that we happened to ask the
expression evaluator to evaluate an expression is not sufficient reason for us
to issue this warning. For instance:
auto a = []{};
void (*p)() = a;
... will ask the evaluator to evaluate the initializer of `p`, which it appears
will now generate a bogus extension warning in C++11 and C++14 mode.
If you want to carry on down this path, I think you will need to do something
similar to what we discussed at Oulu, but I expect getting a correct warning to
be complex and difficult, so I think the best approach would be to give up on
this compat warning / extension, and instead only turn on the `constexpr` flag
in C++17 mode. We could burn a lot of time getting this compatibility warning /
extwarn to work, and it seems better to make progress on the rest of the
constexpr lambdas feature instead :)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D18510
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
