================ @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++2a -verify %s + +struct A { + int a, b[3], c; + bool operator==(const A&) const = default; +}; + +constexpr auto a0 = A{0, 0, 3, 4, 5}; + +// expected-note@+1 {{evaluates to 'A{0, {0, 3, 4}, 5} == A{1, {2, 3, 4}, 5}'}} +static_assert(a0 == A{1, {2, 3, 4}, 5}); // expected-error {{failed}} + +struct _arr { + const int b[3]; + constexpr bool operator==(const int rhs[3]) const { + for (unsigned i = 0; i < sizeof(b) / sizeof(int); i++) + if (b[i] != rhs[i]) + return false; + return true; + } +}; + +// expected-note@+1 {{{evaluates to '_arr{{2, 3, 4}} == (int[3]){0, 3, 4}'}}} +static_assert(_arr{2, 3, 4} == a0.b); // expected-error {{failed}} + +struct B { + int a, c; // named the same just to keep things fresh + bool operator==(const B&) const = default; +}; + +// expected-note@+1 {{evaluates to 'B{7, 6} == B{8, 6}'}} +static_assert(B{7, 6} == B{8, 6}); // expected-error {{failed}} + +typedef int v4si __attribute__((__vector_size__(16))); + +struct C: A, B { + enum { E1, E2 } e; + bool operator==(const C&) const = default; +}; + +constexpr auto cc = C{A{1, {2, 3, 4}, 5}, B{7, 6}, C::E1}; + +// expected-note@+1 {{{evaluates to 'C{{1, {2, 3, 4}, 5}, {7, 6}, 0} == C{{0, {0, 3, 4}, 5}, {5, 0}, 1}'}}} +static_assert(cc == C{a0, {5}, C::E2}); // expected-error {{failed}} ---------------- erichkeane wrote:
I really like the idea of printing enum values (though we obviously have to revert to the number in cases where there isn't a value). However, these longer ones make me wonder if we should be printing JUST the differences here instead of all of this. I realize this is a divergence in the direction of this patch, but feels like it would be a MUCH nicer experience. MAYBE it is a second note? And perhaps it should only happen when there is no user-defined == (and maybe the printing everythign should only happen in that case?). Consider: ``` struct S { int a,b,c; }; constexpr bool operator==(const S&, const S&) { return false;} static_assert(S{1,2,3} == S{1,2,3}); ``` This diagnostic would be REALLY confusing as is, right? 'static-assert-failed' followed by 'S{1,2,3} != S{1,2,3}`. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74852 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits