rsmith added a comment.
Have you considered modelling this as an attribute on the declaration of the
variable instead of as a separate check? If so, why do you prefer this
approach? (If I were to suggest this for standardization, an attribute is the
approach I'd probably take.)
================
Comment at: lib/AST/Expr.cpp:2653-2662
@@ -2651,4 +2652,12 @@
}
-
+ if (CE->getConstructor()->isConstexpr() &&
+ (CE->getConstructor()->getParent()->hasTrivialDestructor() ||
+ AllowNonLiteral)) {
+ for (auto *Arg : CE->arguments()) {
+ if (!Arg->isConstantInitializer(Ctx, false, Culprit))
+ return false;
+ }
+ return true;
+ }
break;
}
----------------
This doesn't look right: just because we're calling a constexpr constructor
with constant arguments doesn't imply that the initializer is constant.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23385
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
