tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/Interp/records.cpp:317-318
{
- auto T = Test(Arr, Pos);
+ Test(Arr, Pos);
// End of scope, should destroy Test.
}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> tbaeder wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Nit: nothing actually tests that this object is destroyed correctly.
> > > Here's an interesting test to consider:
> > > ```
> > > struct S {
> > > constexpr S() {}
> > > constexpr ~S() noexcept(false) { throw 12; }
> > > };
> > >
> > > constexpr int f() {
> > > S{};
> > > return 12;
> > > }
> > >
> > > static_assert(f() == 12);
> > > ```
> > > That should fail because `~S()` would hit the `throw` expression and thus
> > > is not valid. Note, you'll need to add `-Wno-invalid-constexpr` to your
> > > test to avoid the warning-defaults-to-error about the destructor never
> > > producing a constant expression.
> > There are multiple reasons why that sample is not rejected right now, one I
> > can easily fix in a follow-up patch, the other one would actually require
> > us to recognize the `throw` and reject it with a proper diagnostic.
> We should definitely fix the `throw` at some point, but any of the
> dynamically reachable problematic constructs would work (`dynamic_cast` whose
> type would throw, invocation of the `va_arg` macro, `reinterpret_cast`, etc)
Yes, I think we need a new opcode for that so we only emit the diagnostic when
such a construct is actually executed.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147591/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147591
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
