aaron.ballman added a comment. In D147717#4396432 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147717#4396432>, @cjdb wrote:
> In D147717#4395204 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147717#4395204>, @Fznamznon > wrote: > >> In D147717#4393019 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147717#4393019>, @cor3ntin >> wrote: >> >>> I think we should make sure to land this for clang 17. The rate of >>> consteval bugs is no greater than that of any other feature at this point. >> >> There is https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/62886 which seems quite >> ugly, but has a patch on review. >> Otherwise I agree, I'm not seeing more consteval bugs than any others. >> @aaron.ballman , @erichkeane wdyt about landing it? > > The worst-case scenario is that we have to disable the status again. I can't > give an estimate on when I'll finish, so this is fine to me based on > available data. I'd rather not claim support and then pull that back later (that increases confusion for users). That said, looking at the issues we have open for consteval in the issue tracker doesn't show any major issues that don't already have folks working on a fix for them. #62886 is the one that bothers me the most, but @Fznamznon already has a patch going for it that's progressing well. So I'm okay with landing this and claiming full support, but let's do that once the consteval operator bug is closed. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147717/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147717 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
