ldionne added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
libcxx/test/std/utilities/meta/meta.const.eval/is_constant_evaluated.verify.cpp:27
static_assert(!std::is_constant_evaluated(), "");
- // expected-warning@-1 0-1 {{'std::is_constant_evaluated' will always
evaluate to 'true' in a manifestly constant-evaluated expression}}
+ // expected-warning@-1 0-1 {{'std::is_constant_evaluated' will always
evaluate to true in this context}}
#endif
----------------
philnik wrote:
> cor3ntin wrote:
> > Mordante wrote:
> > > hazohelet wrote:
> > > > philnik wrote:
> > > > > Mordante wrote:
> > > > > > Since libc++ support the latest ToT Clang and the last two official
> > > > > > releases this wont work. The `expected-warning` needs to be a
> > > > > > `expected-warning-re` that works for both the new and old diagnostic
> > > > > You can also just shorten it to `'std::is_constant_evaluated' will
> > > > > always evaluate to`. Seems good enough to me.
> > > > Thanks!
> > > I really would like a regex. To me the current message misses an
> > > important piece of information; the `true` part. I care less about the
> > > rest of the message, but stripping the `true` means a warning like
> > > `std::is_constant_evaluated' will always evaluate to FALSE` would be
> > > valid too.
> > Agreed with Mordante
> We're not in the business of testing the compiler though. Taking a closer
> look, I'm not actually sure why this test exists at all. It doesn't seem like
> it tests anything useful w.r.t. the library. This has been added in 2fc5a78,
> but there the warning isn't checked, so that was clearly not the original
> intention.
FWIW I agree, in fact I think we could probably use `//
ADDITIONAL_COMPILE_FLAGS: -Xclang -verify-ignore-unexpected=warning`
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D155064/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D155064
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
