tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Interp.cpp:345-352
+ if ((S.Current->getDepth() + 1) > S.getLangOpts().ConstexprCallDepth) {
+ S.FFDiag(S.Current->getSource(OpPC),
+ diag::note_constexpr_depth_limit_exceeded)
+ << S.getLangOpts().ConstexprCallDepth;
+ return false;
+ }
+
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > `-fconstexpr-depth` sets the number of *recursive* constexpr calls, but
> > this looks like it's measuring the depth of the call stack regardless of
> > whether there's recursion or not. Can you add a test where you set this
> > value to something low and make nested calls that exceed that depth?
> >
> > (Also, there's `-fconstexpr-steps`
> > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#cmdoption-fconstexpr-steps
> > we'll need to support at some point, in case you weren't aware of the
> > option.)
> Whelp, TIL that our docs are wrong and should be updated (I'll take care of
> that): https://godbolt.org/z/ahPjPnhGr
>
> It has nothing to do with recursion, that's just the way in which you'd
> typically run into it.
I know about `-fconstexpr-steps`, but the notion of "steps" is implementation
dependent, isn't it? I.e. I could just cal a "step" the execution of one opcode?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148614/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148614
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
