================
@@ -60,3 +60,26 @@ template<class T1> C1<X<X<T1>>> auto t3() {
template C1<X<X<int>>> auto t3<int>();
static_assert(is_same<decltype(t3<int>()), X<X<X<int>>>>);
#endif
+
+namespace GH95735 {
+
+int g(int fn) {
+ return [f = fn](auto tpl) noexcept(noexcept(f)) { return f; }(0);
+}
+
+int foo(auto... fn) {
+ // FIXME: This one hits the assertion "if the exception specification is
dependent,
+ // then the noexcept expression should be value-dependent" in the
constructor of
+ // FunctionProtoType.
+ // One possible solution is to update Sema::canThrow() to consider
expressions
+ // (e.g. DeclRefExpr/FunctionParmPackExpr) involving unexpanded parameters
as Dependent.
+ // This would effectively add an extra value-dependent flag to the noexcept
expression.
+ // However, I'm afraid that would also cause ABI breakage.
+ // [...f = fn](auto tpl) noexcept(noexcept(f)) { return 0; }(0);
----------------
zyn0217 wrote:
We have that check: with a non-assertion build, we would correctly diagnose
against the unexpanded pack here.
However, that check happens after we form a FunctionProtoType, where an
assertion would have been encountered.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97166
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
