tahonermann added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/static-assert-cxx26.cpp:304
+static_assert('\u{9}' == (char)1, ""); // expected-error {{failed}} \
+ // expected-note {{evaluates to ''\t'
(0x09, 9) == '<U+0001>' (0x01, 1)'}}
+static_assert((char8_t)-128 == (char8_t)-123, ""); // expected-error
{{failed}} \
----------------
Is the expected note up to date? I don't see code that would generate the
`<U+0001>` output. Am I just missing it? Since U+0001 is a valid, though
non-printable, character, I would expect more `'\u0001'`.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/static-assert.cpp:274-277
+ static_assert((char)10 == '\0', ""); // expected-error {{failed}} \
+ // expected-note {{n' (0x0A, 10) ==
'<U+0000>' (0x00, 0)'}}
+ // The note above is intended to match "evaluates to '\n' (0x0A, 10) ==
'<U+0000>' (0x00, 0)'", but if we write it as it is,
+ // the "\n" cannot be consumed by the diagnostic consumer.
----------------
Here too, I find the `'<U+0000>'` presentation surprising; either of `'\0'` or
`'\u0000'` would be preferred.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D155610/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D155610
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
