cor3ntin added a comment. In D155064#4523024 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155064#4523024>, @hazohelet wrote:
> In D155064#4514893 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155064#4514893>, @cor3ntin > wrote: > >> This looks good to me modulo nitpicks. >> When you land that, please make an issue on github for the missing narrowing >> warning, it seems important. >> >> I'll wait before approving in case @aaron.ballman spot things i missed > > I've already prepared another patch to fix the narrowing issue. Should I add > the diff to this patch or open another revision? I think merging the two patches would make sense, yes, that way we avoid regressions > FWIW, I believe `const bool c = std::is_constant_evaluated();` this > particular case should also be diagnosed because it could be a common mistake > as was mentioned in > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/43760#issuecomment-981022686. i think this is less pressing. doing that later (ie, for clang 18) is more reasonable. There are probably some interesting edge cases with constant initialization 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
