erichkeane added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:10389
+ return false;
+ case UO_Minus: {
+ for (unsigned EltNum = 0; EltNum < VD->getNumElements(); ++EltNum) {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Would it be worth handling ~ and ! as well given that they seem pretty
> trivial to support? I don't insist, but I'm trying to reason whether the
> `for` loop should be hoisted out of the `switch` because it seems like it'll
> be needed for all of the cases.
Yep, I can take a look at that. Note the rest of the unary operators are all
either already handled (real/imag), or require switching this over to an
LValueBase/etc as they are modifying, which I don't understand. But those two
should be pretty easy to do.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D115670/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D115670
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
