aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:5927
+ bool VisitSourceLocExpr(SourceLocExpr *E) {
+ HasImmediateCalls = true;
+ return RecursiveASTVisitor<ImmediateCallVisitor>::VisitStmt(E);
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> It may be worth a comment that this relies on the behavior of
> `VisitLambdaExpr` not changing to visit the lambda body. Otherwise, nested
> invocations would be an issue in something like `void func(int a = []{ return
> std::source_location::current(); }());` because we'd claim there is an
> immediate call for that default arg expression when there isn't one.
>
> As it stands, I wonder what the behavior of this code should be:
> ```
> void func(int a =
> ({
> int val = std::souce_location::current();
> val;
> })
> );
> ```
> (Oh, wait, I know, I think we made that code invalid because GNU statement
> expressions in a default argument are horrifying...)
>
> Also, it looks like this code ignores blocks while handling lambdas;
> shouldn't blocks be handled the same way as lambdas?
>
> Can you also add a test for this example:
> ```
> void func(int a =
> (int){ std::source_location::current() }
> );
> ```
> and I suppose we also should have a test for:
> ```
> consteval int terrible_idea_dont_write_this_code_please(
> int &out,
> const int (&a)[std::source_location::current()] = {
> std::source_location::current() }
> ) { out = a[0]; return sizeof(a); }
>
> consteval void func() {
> int a;
> static_assert(terrible_idea_dont_write_this_code_please(a) == a, "hahaha,
> not a chance!");
> }
> ```
> which demonstrates just how deeply bizarre WG21's decision is here -- the
> returned value != `out`.
>
> And similar tests for default inits.
Another test case I devised shows we've got a lambda bug in clang, but would be
worth reasoning about:
```
void func(int a = [b = std::source_location::current()] { return b; }());
```
(this should be valid, but I have no idea what value `a` should have if used as
a default argument.)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136554/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136554
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
