shafik added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:62 directly rather than instantiating the definition from the standard library. +- Implemented `CWG2518 <https://wg21.link/CWG2518>`_ which allows ``static_assert(false)`` + not to be ill-formed when its condition is evaluated in a non-instantiated templates. ---------------- I am assuming this will be updated eventually but that version is not the final one and the one that was approved can be found from: https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1251 and it here: https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2518.html I think a better wording would be `would not be ill-formed when evaluated in the context of a template definition` ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:16806 + bool InTemplateDefinition = + getLangOpts().CPlusPlus && CurContext->isDependentContext(); + ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > cor3ntin wrote: > > erichkeane wrote: > > > CplusPlus check is now not really beneficial? I'm not sure how much it > > > matters now though that these are both just bit-loads. > > isDependentContext still does a bunch of work, recursively. I think we > > should keep it! > Ah, Oh! You're right! It is the Expr class where this is free/just checking > a bit. Disregard. So `isDependentContext()` strictly means we are in a definition context? I think it makes sense after reading the implementation but not obvious at first. Maybe that would to document someplace? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144285/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144285 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
