cor3ntin added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:62 directly rather than instantiating the definition from the standard library. +- Implemented `CWG2518 <https://wg21.link/CWG2518>`_ which allows ``static_assert(false)`` + not to be ill-formed when its condition is evaluated in a non-instantiated templates. ---------------- shafik wrote: > I am assuming this will be updated eventually but that version is not the > final one and the one that was approved can be found from: > https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1251 > > and it here: https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2518.html > > I think a better wording would be `would not be ill-formed when evaluated in > the context of a template definition` I'll tweak the comment a bit, thanks. The link points to the yet-to-be-published core issue list so it will automatically point to the right thing eventually. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:16824-16841 if (InnerCond && isa<ConceptSpecializationExpr>(InnerCond)) { // Drill down into concept specialization expressions to see why they // weren't satisfied. Diag(StaticAssertLoc, diag::err_static_assert_failed) << !AssertMessage << Msg.str() << AssertExpr->getSourceRange(); ConstraintSatisfaction Satisfaction; if (!CheckConstraintSatisfaction(InnerCond, Satisfaction)) ---------------- rsmith wrote: > I wonder if it's worth adding a custom diagnostic (eg, "this template cannot > be instantiated: %0") for the case where we're in template instantiation and > the expression is the bool literal `false`. I'm not sure i see the motivation. Why would we want to special case `false`? The expression could also be an always false, never dependent expression Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144285/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144285 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
