aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/Interp/switch.cpp:46
+constexpr int withInit() {
+ switch(int a = 2; a) {
+ case 1: return -1;
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> 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).
I'd be fine if the tests were added with FIXME comments (or commented out if
they're too disruptive).
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
