hazohelet added a comment.
Thanks for the feedback.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp:994
+static_assert(sobj.f(), ""); // expected-error {{constant expression}}
expected-note {{in call to 'sobj.f()'}}
+static_assert(sptr->f(), ""); // expected-error {{constant expression}}
expected-note {{in call to 'sobj.f()'}}
+static_assert(slref.f(), ""); // expected-error {{constant expression}}
expected-note {{in call to 'sobj.f()'}}
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> So I think this is just trading 1 'wrong' for another. We should be looking
> to see if we can figure out whether this is called with an arrow or not. I
> don't have a good way of doing that unfortunately, but perhaps Aaron has an
> idea?
I believe there might be a slight misunderstanding.
The note generated for the `sptr->f()` will be `sobj.f()`, and not `sptr.f()`,
so I think this patch does not introduce something wrong here.
Note: BEFORE this patch, invalid code `&sobj->f()` is generated for this line.
link: https://godbolt.org/z/vPWjdeqcK
That said, I think it would be ideal to distinguish `sptr` and `sobj` here, but
I am unsure whether we can achieve it without incurring additional memory
footprint.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D151720/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D151720
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
