================
@@ -179,18 +179,20 @@ static_assert(false, Message{}); // expected-error
{{static assertion failed: He
}
struct MessageInvalidSize {
- constexpr auto size(int) const; // expected-note {{candidate function not
viable: requires 1 argument, but 0 were provided}}
- constexpr auto data() const;
+ constexpr unsigned long size(int) const; // expected-note {{'size'
declared here}}
+ constexpr const char* data() const;
};
struct MessageInvalidData {
- constexpr auto size() const;
- constexpr auto data(int) const; // expected-note {{candidate function not
viable: requires 1 argument, but 0 were provided}}
+ constexpr unsigned long size() const;
+ constexpr const char* data(int) const; // expected-note {{'data' declared
here}}
};
static_assert(false, MessageInvalidSize{}); // expected-error {{static
assertion failed}} \
- // expected-error {{the message
in a static assertion must have a 'size()' member function returning an object
convertible to 'std::size_t'}}
+ // expected-error {{the message
in a static assertion must have a 'size()' member function returning an object
convertible to 'std::size_t'}} \
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
The diagnostic is actually slightly worse than it was before -- this *does*
have a `size()` member function that returns an object convertible to
`std::size_t`, the issue is that it's not viable to call because it has
required parameters. The previous notes were a bit better at showing this
because some users use `()` to mean "this is the name of a function not a
variable" in prose and not "this is a function call accepting no arguments" --
e.g., `memcpy()` vs `errno` Same issue applies to the `data()` diagnostic below.
Can we do anything about this (without a ton of effort)?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73234
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
