tbaeder marked an inline comment as done.
tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/Interp/switch.cpp:46
+constexpr int withInit() {
+ switch(int a = 2; a) {
+ case 1: return -1;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I think it would be good to add a non-trivial init and show that it fails
> when appropriate. e.g.,
> ```
> struct Weirdo {
> consteval Weirdo(int);
> Weirdo(double);
>
> int Val = 1;
> };
>
> constexpr int whatever() {
> switch (Weirdo W(12); W.Val) {
> case 1: return 12;
> default: return 100;
> }
> }
>
> constexpr int whatever_else() {
> switch (Weirdo W(1.2); W.Val) { // Should get an error because of the init
> not being constexpr
> case 1: return 12;
> default: return 100;
> }
> }
>
> static_assert(whatever() == 12, "");
> static_assert(whatever_else() == 12, ""); // Shouldn't compile because the
> function isn't constexpr
> ```
This is unfortunately hard do test with the new constant interpreter right now.
It never emits the "never produces a constant expression" diagnostic because I
removed the `Run()` call from `isPotentialConstantExpression()`. I need to
revert that and instead fix the interpreter to correctly takes this mode into
account.
And for the non-constexpr constructor, we will reject the call in the
`static_assert()`, but not diagnose anything useful because we're not checking
the constructor for constexpr-ness (this is part of
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137563 I believe).
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137415/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137415
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
