tbaeder added a comment. In D135569#3847493 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135569#3847493>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> This function is testing whether something is potentially a constant > expression. Something might not be a valid constant expression for two > reasons: 1) it uses some prohibited language construct, 2) it hit undefined > behavior. You don't know if you hit undefined behavior until you run the > function, so could that be why the function was being run? However, I don't > know how you would run an arbitrary function that might accept arguments, so > the `Run` call does look suspicious -- especially because it landed in the > initial patch of the functionality (https://reviews.llvm.org/D64146) without > comment. Yes. A few weeks ago I thought it might make sense to actually set functions to invalid if `isPotentialConstantExpr()` returns `false`, but found out that it returns `false` all the time, e.g. if the function expects parameters. I think the whole "lets compile all constexpr functions" approach will probably go away at some point anyway? When including stdlib headers, we're probably compiling a lot of code that will never run... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135569/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135569 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
