rupprecht added a comment.
In D144285#4163004 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144285#4163004>, @cor3ntin wrote:
> If however we find this change to disruptive, we should inform WG21.
Thanks for the explanation, I think I understand the issue now. I got totally
thrown off by the title -- it's not about literally writing
`static_assert(false)`, it's about deferring `static_assert` evaluation to
template instantiations. Being able to write `static_assert(false)` (or any
falsy constant expression) is just the common use case for this.
So possibly the most trivial example of something that used to break, but now
builds:
template <typename>
void Fail() {
static_assert(false, "my assertion failed");
}
... but will still fail as soon as you invoke `Fail<any_type>()` somewhere.
It doesn't look like there's a lot of impact from this, and the breakages are
corner cases like this. It might be worth mentioning this one case to WG21 but
I'm not sure what I would change about the wording.
================
Comment at: clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html:14915
<tr class="open" id="2518">
<td><a href="https://wg21.link/cwg2518";>2518</a></td>
<td>review</td>
----------------
Is it possible to make this link point to
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2518.html? This link is inaccessible to
anyone not on ISO.
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
