tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/Interp/literals.cpp:875
1 ? 0 : 1;
+ sizeof(A);
+ alignof(A);
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> tbaeder wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Let's make sure we still reject this:
> > > ```
> > > constexpr int oh_my() {
> > > int x = 0;
> > > sizeof(int[x++]); // This would usually be evaluated because VLAs are
> > > terrible
> > > return x;
> > > }
> > > ```
> > > https://godbolt.org/z/E3jx6co46
> > Hm, no, doesn't get rejected:
> > ```
> > array.cpp:1240:3: warning: expression result unused [-Wunused-value]
> > 1240 | sizeof(int[x++]); // This would usually be evaluated because VLAs
> > are terrible
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > array.cpp:1243:15: error: static assertion failed due to requirement
> > 'oh_my() == 1'
> > 1243 | static_assert(oh_my() == 1);
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > array.cpp:1243:23: note: expression evaluates to '0 == 1'
> > 1243 | static_assert(oh_my() == 1);
> > | ~~~~~~~~^~~~
> > ```
> It looks to me like we're not modelling the side effects properly (we would
> return `1` if we were, so the `static_assert` would have passed), which might
> explain why we're failing to reject the code.
Right, I understand, I was just showing the current state. From looking at it
though, this is not something to be fixed here, the `x++` is passed stand-alone
to `evaluateAsRValue()`. Not sure yet what the exact problem is, I guess this
is called before we even registered a local variable for `x`. I'll look into it.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149834/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149834
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
