sammccall added a comment. In D119094#3301481 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119094#3301481>, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> In D119094#3301403 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119094#3301403>, @sammccall > wrote: > >> In D119094#3301297 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119094#3301297>, @Quuxplusone >> wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately some existing tests fail: >>> https://reviews.llvm.org/harbormaster/unit/view/2282838/ >>> I haven't yet figured out why consteval functions are considered to have >>> `FD->isInvalidDecl()`. There's also an Objective-C failure that I assume >>> indicates sometimes (when this is a //method// not a //function//) we have >>> no `FD` at all. I'd need to solve both of these problems (the former being >>> the difficult one) before I can make progress here. >> >> The example seems to be invalid even apart from the missing return value. (I >> assume on purpose). > > Ohhh, wow, I had missed that. In that case, I'm shocked that Clang isn't > giving any more serious error message: shouldn't it be considered invalid, > and diagnosed as an error, to have a `constexpr` definition followed by a > `consteval` redefinition? > https://godbolt.org/z/vKjGvEor8 > However, I think the pattern of operators used (`++--*/*/`) indicates that > the original author made a typo there, and it should always have been > `+-+-*/*/`. So I'll feel good about changing that test. It is diagnosed as an error (err_constexpr_redecl_mismatch), but in this case the error for the missing return value ends up suppressing it somehow. I'm not sure exactly what the intent of this test was :-( Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119094/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119094 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
