cjdb added a comment. Thank you so much for working on this! It's been on my todo list for a while and just haven't gotten around to it.
In D130894#3702166 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130894#3702166>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > In D130894#3701749 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130894#3701749>, @tbaeder wrote: > >> For the record, the output now looks something like this: >> >> test.cpp:24:1: error: static assertion failed due to requirement 'c != c' >> static_assert(c != c); >> ^ ~~~~~~ >> test.cpp:24:17: note: expression evaluates to '('0' != '0')' >> static_assert(c != c); >> ~~^~~~ > > This looks hard to read to me... > >> test.cpp:25:1: error: static assertion failed due to requirement 'c > 'a'' >> static_assert(c > 'a'); >> ^ ~~~~~~~ >> test.cpp:25:17: note: expression evaluates to '('0' > 'a')' > > Same confusion here -- it took me a while to realize what's happening is that > we're quoting the part outside of the parens and that's throwing me for a > loop. We typically quote things that are syntax but in this case, the parens > are not part of the syntax and so the surrounding quotes are catching me. > Given that parens are being used as a visual delimiter and a single quote > serves the same purpose, I would expect something more like: > > test.cpp:25:17: note: expression evaluates to ''0' > 'a'' > test.cpp:26:17: note: expression evaluates to '0 > 'a'' > test.cpp:27:17: note: expression evaluates to '14 > 5' > test.cpp:28:17: note: expression evaluates to 'true == false' > test.cpp:29:17: note: expression evaluates to 'nullptr != nullptr' > > Adding a few more folks as reviewers to see if there is a consensus position > on how to proceed. Agreed on confusion, but `''0' > 'a''` is painful to read. Sadly, short of changing quotes to backticks (something that'd be good for non-terminal-based consumers of SARIF), I'm not sure I can suggest anything better in one line. If we can span multiple lines, which I think would improve readability: test.cpp:25:17: note: expression evaluates with: LHS: '0' RHS: 'a' test.cpp:26:17: note: expression evaluates with: LHS: 0 RHS: 'a' test.cpp:27:17: note: expression evaluates with: LHS: 14 RHS: 5 test.cpp:28:17: note: expression evaluates with: LHS: true RHS: false test.cpp:29:17: note: expression evaluates with: LHS: nullptr RHS: nullptr My assertion library follows what Catch2 and simple-test do, and uses `Actual` and `Expected`, but I'm not sure hardcoding those terms into Clang is a good idea. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130894/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130894 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
