cor3ntin 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}} \
----------------
tahonermann wrote:
> 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'`.
See elsewhere in the discussion. this formating is pre existing and managed at
the DiagnosticEngine level (pushEscapedString). the reason it's not `\u0001` is
1/ to avoid reusing c++ syntactic elements for something that comes from
diagnostics and is not represented as an escaped sequence in source 2/
`\u00011` is unreadable, and `\U000000001` is also not helpful :)
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
