cor3ntin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-consteval.cpp:612
+static_assert(is_same<long, T>::value);
+
+} // namespace unevaluated
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Here's an interesting test case:
> > ```
> > #include <typeinfo>
> >
> > struct S {
> > virtual void f();
> > };
> >
> > struct D : S {
> > void f() override;
> > };
> >
> > consteval S *get_s() { return nullptr; }
> >
> > void func() {
> > (void)typeid(*get_s());
> > }
> > ```
> > `typeid` still needs to evaluate its operand (due to the polymorphic return
> > type of `*get_s()`), and so you should get a diagnostic about evaluating
> > the side effects by calling `get_s()`. I think this then runs into
> > https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#13.sentence-3 and we should diagnose?
> Not sure!
> Also, in the context of this pr, the question is also whether
> `decltype(typeid(*get_s()))` should be ill-formed I think
Actually, I'm reading the wording again and I really don't know anymore.
`get_s()` is a constant expression, right?
`*get_s()` is not, I think but is that relevant here
I played with a bunch of things in the code but the more I look at it the less
I'm convinced an action is needed.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106302/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106302
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
