Fznamznon added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/paren-list-agg-init.cpp:276-285
+namespace gh62863 {
+int (&&arr)[] = static_cast<int[]>(42);
+// beforecxx20-warning@-1 {{aggregate initialization of type 'int[1]' from a
parenthesized list of values is a C++20 extension}}
+int (&&arr1)[1] = static_cast<int[]>(42);
+// beforecxx20-warning@-1 {{aggregate initialization of type 'int[1]' from a
parenthesized list of values is a C++20 extension}}
+int (&&arrr2)[2] = static_cast<int[]>(42); // expected-error {{reference to
type 'int[2]' could not bind to an rvalue of type 'int[1]'}}
+// beforecxx20-warning@-1 {{aggregate initialization of type 'int[1]' from a
parenthesized list of values is a C++20 extension}}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I'd like to see test coverage for:
> ```
> int (&&arr)[] = (int[])(42);
> int (&&arr1)[1] = (int[])(42);
> int (&&arrr2)[2] = (int[])(42);
> int (&&arr3)[3] = (int[3])(42);
> ```
> where we're using a C-style cast, because: http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.cast#4
Thank you for the review!
Just to double check, so it says:
> The conversions performed by ... *all named casts* can be performed using the
> cast notation of explicit type conversion.
Does that mean the c-style cast should produce the same thing? And,
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1975r0.html doesn't
say anything about c-style casts because it is assumed that it should be able
to do anything that `static_cast` can do?
gcc doesn't agree https://godbolt.org/z/Pfq8frdn9 . The funny thing is that the
original bug report seems to be using some kind of gcc test.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152003/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152003
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
