On 10/17/19 11:30 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. hi again.
We have an issue with this idea which I didn't notice earlier today:
there are some libstdc++ *_neg testcases which rely on permerrors being
emitted for code in library headers. For example
20_util/ratio/cons/cons_overflow_neg.cc relies on a permerror for the
"overflow in constant expression" in constexpr.c. Or,
20_util/variant/visit_neg.cc relies on the permerror for "invalid
conversion from .. to .." emitted by convert_like_real.
Something seems a little fishy here but I'm not sure which way we want
to go: I don't think we want to audit that right here, right now all the
permerrors in the front-end which could potentially be involved in this
kind of issue. Even if we, say, promote to plain errors the above two,
that seems brittle, we got many permerrors which in principle should be
real errors.
Hmm, true. So your patch from yesterday is OK.
Jason
