rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp:6369
// very difficult. Ideally, we should handle them more gracefully.
- if (!EIA->getCond()->EvaluateWithSubstitution(
+ if (EIA->getCond()->isValueDependent() ||
+ !EIA->getCond()->EvaluateWithSubstitution(
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > This is treating value-dependent `enable_if` conditions as having failed.
> > Is that really appropriate? (When do we call this with value-depnedent
> > `enable_if` attributes? I'd expect it to only be called after substitution)
> This test case in `llvm-project/clang/test/SemaCXX/enable_if.cpp` passes a
> dependent condition:
>
> ```
> void h(int);
> template <typename T> void outer() {
> void local_function() __attribute__((enable_if(::h(T()), "")));
> local_function();
> };
> ```
>
> According to https://reviews.llvm.org/D20130, it seems like it was decided to
> document implementation details as specification, and say that `enable_if` is
> evaluated during overload resolution, whenever that happens to happen.
Hm. Yeah, I suppose we disable `enable_if` functions if the condition can't be
evaluated, and this is a "can't be evaluated" case in some sense. I don't like
it (the right thing would be to treat this as a dependent overload resolution),
but as a short-term fix for this patch I suppose it's the right local choice.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61522/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61522
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
