hokein marked an inline comment as done.
hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/enable_if.cpp:417
-constexpr int B = 10 + // the carat for the error should be pointing to the
problematic call (on the next line), not here.
- callTemplated<0>(); // expected-error{{initialized by a constant
expression}} expected-error@-3{{no matching function for call to 'templated'}}
expected-note{{in instantiation of function template}}
expected-note@-10{{candidate disabled}}
+constexpr int B = 10 + // expected-error {{initialized by a constant
expression}}
+ callTemplated<0>(); // expected-error@-3{{no matching function for call to
'templated'}} expected-note{{in instantiation of function template}}
expected-note@-10{{candidate disabled}} expected-note {{in call to
'callTemplated()'}} expected-note@-3 {{subexpression not valid in a constant
expression}}
----------------
hokein wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > hokein wrote:
> > > this diagnostic is changed slightly (without `-frecovery-ast-type`). I
> > > think this is acceptable.
> > >
> > > before this patch:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > /tmp/t5.cpp:7:10: error: no matching function for call to 'templated'
> > > return templated<N>(); // expected-error {{no matching function for
> > > call to 'templated'}}
> > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > /tmp/t5.cpp:13:5: note: in instantiation of function template
> > > specialization 'enable_if_diags::callTemplated<0>' requested here
> > > callTemplated<0>(); // expected-note {{in call to 'callTemplated()'}}
> > > expected-note@-6 {{subexpression not valid in a constant expression}}
> > > ^
> > > /tmp/t5.cpp:2:32: note: candidate disabled: <no message provided>
> > > template <int N> constexpr int templated() __attribute__((enable_if(N,
> > > ""))) {
> > > ^ ~
> > > /tmp/t5.cpp:13:5: error: constexpr variable 'B' must be initialized by a
> > > constant expression
> > > callTemplated<0>(); // expected-note {{in call to 'callTemplated()'}}
> > > expected-note@-6 {{subexpression not valid in a constant expression}}
> > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > 2 errors generated.
> > > ```
> > >
> > > vs after this patch:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > /tmp/t5.cpp:7:10: error: no matching function for call to 'templated'
> > > return templated<N>(); // expected-error {{no matching function for
> > > call to 'templated'}}
> > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > /tmp/t5.cpp:13:5: note: in instantiation of function template
> > > specialization 'enable_if_diags::callTemplated<0>' requested here
> > > callTemplated<0>(); // expected-note {{in call to 'callTemplated()'}}
> > > expected-note@-6 {{subexpression not valid in a constant expression}}
> > > ^
> > > /tmp/t5.cpp:2:32: note: candidate disabled: <no message provided>
> > > template <int N> constexpr int templated() __attribute__((enable_if(N,
> > > ""))) {
> > > ^ ~
> > > /tmp/t5.cpp:12:15: error: constexpr variable 'B' must be initialized by a
> > > constant expression
> > > constexpr int B = 10 + // expected-error {{constexpr variable 'B' must
> > > be initialized by a constant expression}}
> > > ^
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > /tmp/t5.cpp:7:10: note: subexpression not valid in a constant expression
> > > return templated<N>(); // expected-error {{no matching function for
> > > call to 'templated'}}
> > > ^
> > > /tmp/t5.cpp:13:5: note: in call to 'callTemplated()'
> > > callTemplated<0>(); // expected-note {{in call to 'callTemplated()'}}
> > > expected-note@-6 {{subexpression not valid in a constant expression}}
> > > ^
> > > 2 errors generated.
> > > ```
> > >
> > >
> > Yeah, this is noisier but seems OK.
> > Can you take a look at the blame for the split-line test and see if there
> > was any special code to support it that can be cleaned up?
> `git blame` showed
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c7d3e609fbf05d1a1236f99efd1e2fd344554f4b,
> but I didn't see any special code that we need clean up.
actually we don't need this change if we land this patch before the
enable-recovery-expr patch, defer this change to D78350.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-function-params.cpp:1
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i686-unknown-unknown -fsyntax-only -verify %s
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> hokein wrote:
> > this test is very tricky, and hard for human to understand. It was added to
> > test clang not crashing.
> >
> > Different compilers (gcc, msvc) emit different diagnostics, with this
> > patch, clang emits 3 more errs `no type named 'type'...`, it seems
> > reasonable, and gcc also emits them.
> Ugh, I remember this test. It's partially reduced from boost IIRC.
the same to this file, defer it to D78350.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79160/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79160
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
