chestnykh added a comment. In D141192#4033962 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D141192#4033962>, @tbaeder wrote:
> In D141192#4033591 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D141192#4033591>, @shafik wrote: > >> So it looks like in `handleIntIntBinOp` we do hit this code: >> >> unsigned SA = (unsigned) RHS.getLimitedValue(LHS.getBitWidth()-1); >> if (SA != RHS) { >> Info.CCEDiag(E, diag::note_constexpr_large_shift) >> << RHS << E->getType() << LHS.getBitWidth(); >> >> So maybe we should figure out why we decide not to emit this diagnostic and >> fix it there. > > We return `true` anyway and so the diagnostics are not printed. This is > reached from a call to `VerifyIntegerConstantExpression()` IIRC. Yes, but it seems there is no proper way to handle, for example, C code compiling in this place, so i left `DiagnoseBadShiftValues` changes. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D141192/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D141192 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
