courbet marked an inline comment as done.
courbet added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/PCH/cxx-static_assert.cpp:17
-// expected-error@12 {{static_assert failed "N is not 2!"}}
+// expected-error@12 {{static_assert failed due to requirement '1 == 2' "N is
not 2!"}}
T<1> t1; // expected-note {{in instantiation of template class 'T<1>'
requested here}}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I'm not certain how I feel about now printing the failure condition when
> there's an explicit message provided. From what I understand, a fair amount
> of code in the wild does `static_assert(some_condition, "some_condition")`
> because of older language modes where the message was not optional. I worry
> we're going to start seeing a lot of diagnostics like: `static_assert failed
> due to requirement '1 == 2' "N == 2"`, which seems a bit low-quality. See
> `DFAPacketizer::DFAPacketizer()` in LLVM as an example of something similar.
>
> Given that the user entered a message, do we still want to show the
> requirement? Do we feel the same way if the requirement is fairly large?
The issue is that `"N == 2"` is a useless error message. Actually, since the
error message has to be a string literal, there is no way for the user to print
a debuggable output. So I really think we should print the failed condition.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55270/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55270
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
