aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:16824-16841
if (InnerCond && isa<ConceptSpecializationExpr>(InnerCond)) {
// Drill down into concept specialization expressions to see why they
// weren't satisfied.
Diag(StaticAssertLoc, diag::err_static_assert_failed)
<< !AssertMessage << Msg.str() << AssertExpr->getSourceRange();
ConstraintSatisfaction Satisfaction;
if (!CheckConstraintSatisfaction(InnerCond, Satisfaction))
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > cor3ntin wrote:
> > > rsmith wrote:
> > > > I wonder if it's worth adding a custom diagnostic (eg, "this template
> > > > cannot be instantiated: %0") for the case where we're in template
> > > > instantiation and the expression is the bool literal `false`.
> > > I'm not sure i see the motivation. Why would we want to special case
> > > `false`? The expression could also be an always false, never dependent
> > > expression
> > Richard may have different ideas in mind, but the motivation to me is code
> > like:
> > ```
> > template <typename Ty>
> > struct S {
> > static_assert(false, "you have to use one of the valid specializations,
> > not the primary template");
> > };
> >
> > template <>
> > struct S<int> {
> > };
> >
> > template <>
> > struct S<float> {
> > };
> >
> > int main() {
> > S<int> s1;
> > S<float> s2;
> > S<double> s3;
> > }
> > ```
> > Rather than telling the user the static_assert failed because false is not
> > true, having a custom diagnostic might read better for users. GCC doesn't
> > produce a custom diagnostic -- the behavior isn't terrible, but the "false
> > evaluates to false" note is effectively just noise, too:
> > https://godbolt.org/z/456bzWG7c
> OH. That makes sense now, thanks. I think I agree.
> Interestingly, in gcc immediate calls are really immediate :)
> https://godbolt.org/z/b3vrzf4sj
I think you should add this case as a test in dr25xx.cpp to show we get the
behavior correct with specializations.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp:5-14
+#error one
+// expected-error@-1 {{one}}
+#if 0
+#error skip
+#warning skip // expected-error {{skip}}
+#endif
+#error two
----------------
What do these tests have to do with this DR?
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp:9
+#error skip
+#warning skip // expected-error {{skip}}
+#endif
----------------
Why do we expect an error on this line in a `#if 0` block??
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/static-assert.cpp:235-236
+int f() {
+ S<double> s; //expected-note{{in instantiation of template class
'DependentAlwaysFalse::S<double>' requested here}}
+ T<double> t; //expected-note{{in instantiation of template class
'DependentAlwaysFalse::T<double>' requested here}}
+}
----------------
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D144285/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D144285
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
