xgupta added a comment. In D155457#4523227 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155457#4523227>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D155457#4513812 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155457#4513812>, @xgupta wrote: > >> In D155457#4511652 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155457#4511652>, >> @aaron.ballman wrote: >> >>> In the x86 compilation: `sizeof(std::size_t) < sizeof(uint64_t)` is true, >>> so we test the other expression; because `Size` is greater than >>> `__SIZE_MAX__` the function returns false and the second static assertion >>> fails as expected. >>> In the x64 compilation: `sizeof(std::size_t) < sizeof(uint64_t)` is false >>> (first static assertion fails) so we shouldn't even be evaluating the RHS >>> of the `&&` to see if it's tautological because it can't contribute to the >>> expression result, right? >> >> Yes, I agree with both statements but what is odd in current behavior? > > It's a false positive -- the tautological bit is diagnosed but it doesn't > contribute to the result of the expression. The first part of the predicate > is specifically intended to ensure the second part of the predicate is *not* > tautological. Ok, Is there any modification required in this patch or it fixes that false positive? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D155457/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D155457 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
