================
@@ -7963,6 +7967,148 @@ static Attr *getCCTypeAttr(ASTContext &Ctx, ParsedAttr
&Attr) {
llvm_unreachable("unexpected attribute kind!");
}
+ExprResult Sema::ActOnEffectExpression(Expr *CondExpr, FunctionEffectMode
&Mode,
+ bool RequireConstexpr) {
+ // see checkFunctionConditionAttr, Sema::CheckCXXBooleanCondition
+ if (RequireConstexpr || !CondExpr->isTypeDependent()) {
+ ExprResult E = PerformContextuallyConvertToBool(CondExpr);
+ if (E.isInvalid())
+ return E;
+ CondExpr = E.get();
+ if (RequireConstexpr || !CondExpr->isValueDependent()) {
+ llvm::APSInt CondInt;
+ E = VerifyIntegerConstantExpression(
----------------
dougsonos wrote:
Thanks. With the unexpanded pack: During initial parsing of the function type,
it's seen as dependent and represented that way, holding onto the condition.
Is there a way at this time to detect that the expression is not only dependent
but an unexpanded pack? Maybe it's as simple as
`E->containsUnexpandedParameterPack()`? That looks promising, but it's bugging
me that there are no (obvious) precedents for this.
If I add `void g() { f<true, false>(); }` there is a second attempt to resolve
the expression but it is still dependent, so clearly there is an error here.
But I can imagine cases where it takes more than one level of template
instantiation for a dependent expression to be resolved.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84983
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
