cor3ntin added a comment. In D111400#3243826 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111400#3243826>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D111400#3172097 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111400#3172097>, @cor3ntin > wrote: > >> Regression compared to the status quo: >> This code no longer warns (as noted by Hubert above) >> >> auto f = [](bool b) { >> if (b) return 42; >> static int x = 0; >> return x; >> }; >> constexpr int x = f(true); >> const int *p = &x; >> >> GCC doesn't warn and... if we wanted to produce a warning there, I have no >> idea how to go about it. > > I think I found the issue in the code, but one thing that's strange is that > we don't seem to treat it as an extension but instead issue an error, but the > behavior is consistent with other things we handle as an extension there > (e.g., a local variable in C++14 mode). Yes, that was a bug, but the code above cannot be diagnose. at the time when the lambda f() is parsed, there is no indication that it must be usable in a constexpr context, and so the compiler doesn't emit a diagnostic. It does when the call operator is marked explicitly `constexpr` auto f = [] (bool b) constexpr { if (b) return 42; static int x = 0; return x; }; constexpr int x = f(true); const int *p = &x; This behavior is identical to GCC's https://compiler-explorer.com/z/xor3oYGMa Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D111400/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D111400 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
