dim added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp:2479-2486
+template<class T, unsigned size> struct Bitfield {
+ static constexpr T max = static_cast<T>((1 << size) - 1);
+};
+
+void testValueInRangeOfEnumerationValuesViaTemplate() {
+ Bitfield<E2, 3> good;
+ Bitfield<E2, 4> bad;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Equivalent but a bit easier to tell where the diagnostic is expected to
> happen at.
>
> Perhaps a good follow-up would be to find out why we're not printing an
> "instantiated from here" note for this case (CC @shafik), but no need to do
> that for this patch.
Ah, I didn't know that syntax. At first I had the `cxx11-error@` just below the
`static_cast` in the `Bitfield` class, but it seemed clearer to do it the way I
did.
That said, you are right that it would probably be handy to show where the
instantiation is coming from (if there is a template involved), because
currently it does not point you to the exact source line where the problem is:
in this case the `bad` declaration.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152788/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152788
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
