aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM but perhaps we should add an expected-failing test case for the `_BitInt`
situation just so we don't forget about it.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/PrimType.h:108
+ switch (Expr) {
\
+ TYPE_SWITCH_CASE(PT_Sint8, B)
\
+ TYPE_SWITCH_CASE(PT_Uint8, B)
\
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Oh boy, this is going to be interesting, isn't it?
> > ```
> > consteval _Complex _BitInt(12) UhOh() { return (_Complex _BitInt(12))1; }
> > consteval _Complex _BitInt(18) Why() { return (_Complex _BitInt(18))1; }
> >
> > static_assert(UhOh() + Why() == 2);
> > ```
> >
> `_BitInt` isn't supported in the new interpreter at all right now, so this
> just gets rejected.
>
>
> Apart from that... is a complex bitint really something that should be
> supported? Not just in the new interpreter but generally?
> _BitInt isn't supported in the new interpreter at all right now, so this just
> gets rejected.
Well, that's sort of good then! :-D We'll have to deal with `_BitInt` at some
point, so maybe we can add this as a test case with expected failures and a
fixit comment so we don't forget about it?
> Apart from that... is a complex bitint really something that should be
> supported? Not just in the new interpreter but generally?
I don't see why not; we support complex integer types and `_BitInt` is an
integer type. We support `_Complex` from C in C++ and we support `_BitInt` from
C in C++, so it seems reasonable to expect `_Complex _BitInt` to work.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146408/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146408
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
