tahonermann added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeExprGen.cpp:662
+ return this->emitGetPtrParam(It->second, E);
+ }
+
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> tahonermann wrote:
> > Perhaps add:
> > else {
> > assert(0 && "Unhandled declaration kind");
> > }
> We actually hit this path for non-constexpr-conforming functions, so
> asserting doesn't work:
> ```
> constexpr void foo(int a) {
> constexpr int b = a;
> }
> ```
> The initializer for `b` goes through `evaluteAsInitializer()` before the
> function `foo` is ever registered, so the parameter is not known. This is
> diagnosed by the current interpreter as well:
>
> ```
> array.cpp:13:17: error: constexpr variable 'b' must be initialized by a
> constant expression
> constexpr int b = a;
> ^ ~
> array.cpp:13:21: note: function parameter 'a' with unknown value cannot be
> used in a constant expression
> constexpr int b = a;
> ^
> array.cpp:12:24: note: declared here
> constexpr void foo(int a) {
> ^
> ```
>
> Would be a good future test case, but right now the error message for the new
> interpreter is just "constexpr variable 'b' must be initialized by a constant
> expression".
I see, interesting.
I imagine future work will be needed to support references to lambda/block
captures, data members, and such? And the answer to those right now is, we're
not there yet?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132111/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132111
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
