aaron.ballman added a comment. In D158540#4628629 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158540#4628629>, @NoumanAmir657 wrote:
> In D158540#4628310 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158540#4628310>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D158540#4628265 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158540#4628265>, >> @NoumanAmir657 wrote: >> >>> No, I don't have code examples that showcase the importance of the note. As >>> you said the class context would be obvious whenever we run into this error. >>> The test files also don't show where the note would be helpful. >> >> The crux of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/64843 is about the >> error diagnostic, and that logic hasn't been changed in this patch -- are >> there other changes that are missing from the patch? The text of the tests >> shows that the error diagnostic behavior should have changed as well, but >> I'm not seeing the functional changes to make that happen. > > Can you elaborate further? I did not understand what you mean by functional > changes. According to my knowledge, I don't think anything else is missing > from the patch. The only changes I see in the review are the addition of `note_incorrect_defaulted_constexpr` and emitting that note. However, I see test cases changing from: constexpr W() __constant = default; // expected-error {{defaulted definition of default constructor is not constexpr}} to constexpr W() __constant = default; // expected-error {{default constructor cannot be 'constexpr' in a class with virtual base classes}} expected-note {{see reference to function 'W' in 'W' class}} where the error wording is now different, but I don't see any code changes to the compiler for the error wording. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D158540/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D158540 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
