rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:16824-16841
if (InnerCond && isa<ConceptSpecializationExpr>(InnerCond)) {
// Drill down into concept specialization expressions to see why they
// weren't satisfied.
Diag(StaticAssertLoc, diag::err_static_assert_failed)
<< !AssertMessage << Msg.str() << AssertExpr->getSourceRange();
ConstraintSatisfaction Satisfaction;
if (!CheckConstraintSatisfaction(InnerCond, Satisfaction))
----------------
I wonder if it's worth adding a custom diagnostic (eg, "this template cannot be
instantiated: %0") for the case where we're in template instantiation and the
expression is the bool literal `false`.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/static-assert.cpp:53-57
template<typename T> struct AlwaysFails {
// Only give one error here.
static_assert(false, ""); // expected-error {{static assertion failed}}
};
+AlwaysFails<int> alwaysFails; // expected-note {{instantiation}}
----------------
I think we should also test the case where `AlwaysFails` is instantiated twice,
and that we get one "static assertion failed" error per instantiation, rather
than only one in total.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-var-template.cpp:34
template<typename T> void f() {
- static_assert(a<sizeof(sizeof(f(T())))> == 0, ""); // expected-error
{{static assertion failed due to requirement 'a<sizeof (sizeof
(f(type-parameter-0-0())))> == 0'}} \
- // expected-note
{{evaluates to '1 == 0'}}
+ static_assert(a<sizeof(sizeof(f(T())))> == 0, ""); // fixme: can we check
a var is dependant?
}
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> cor3ntin wrote:
> > erichkeane wrote:
> > > You should be able to instantiate this template later, and probably what
> > > we now have to do. Also, 'dependent' is the spelling in this case,
> > > 'dependant' is something different :)
> > I'm afraid doing though would defeat the intent of the test - it is after
> > all named "InstantiationDependent"
> Ah, yeah, you're right, it isn't clear what this is trying to test to me
> unfortunately. It might require some history digging. Same comment as below
> on the spelling.
I think you can preserve the intent of this test by using the old array trick
rather than a static assert:
```
int check[a<sizeof(sizeof(f(T())))> == 0 ? 1 : -1]; // expected-error {{array
with a negative size}}
```
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaTemplate/instantiation-dependence.cpp:41
static_assert(!__is_void(indirect_void_t<T>)); // "ok", dependent
- static_assert(!__is_void(void_t<T>)); // expected-error {{failed}}
+ static_assert(!__is_void(void_t<T>)); // fixme: can we check a type is
dependant?
}
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> This one is probably a bigger pain to test, and I don't have a good idea.
You can use the array trick here too.
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
