tbaeder added a comment.
IMO it's clear enough...
test.cpp:24:1: error: static assertion failed due to requirement 'c != c'
static_assert(c != c);
^ ~~~~~~
test.cpp:24:17: note: expression evaluates to 'a != a'
static_assert(c != c);
~~^~~~
test.cpp:25:1: error: static assertion failed due to requirement 'c < 'a''
static_assert(c < 'a');
^ ~~~~~~~
test.cpp:25:15: note: left-hand side of operator '<' evaluates to 'a'
static_assert(c < 'a');
^
2 errors generated.
Printing the first note as ''a' != 'a'' doesn't make it clearer. But for
test.cpp:24:1: error: static assertion failed due to requirement 'c != c'
static_assert(c != c);
^ ~~~~~~
test.cpp:24:17: note: expression evaluates to '0 != 0'
static_assert(c != c);
~~^~~~
test.cpp:25:1: error: static assertion failed due to requirement 'c > 'a''
static_assert(c > 'a');
^ ~~~~~~~
test.cpp:25:15: note: left-hand side of operator '>' evaluates to '0'
static_assert(c > 'a');
^
where `c` is a char variable, the output looks kind of weird. "0 != 0" looks
like we're comparing two integers.
We might also go the g++ route and use `evaluates to ('0' != '0')` for the full
expression, but that looks weird for just one side: `evaluates to (6)`. But we
could also always print the full expression so we only have one case.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130894/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130894
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
