================
@@ -9237,6 +9282,22 @@ static FunctionDecl *CreateNewFunctionDecl(Sema
&SemaRef, Declarator &D,
FunctionDecl *NewFD = nullptr;
bool isInline = D.getDeclSpec().isInlineSpecified();
+ ConstexprSpecKind ConstexprKind = D.getDeclSpec().getConstexprSpecifier();
+ if (ConstexprKind == ConstexprSpecKind::Constinit ||
+ (SemaRef.getLangOpts().C23 &&
+ ConstexprKind == ConstexprSpecKind::Constexpr)) {
+
+ if (SemaRef.getLangOpts().C23)
+ SemaRef.Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getConstexprSpecLoc(),
+ diag::err_c23_constexpr_not_variable);
----------------
Fznamznon wrote:
> Hmmm, I'm not certain we need to change anything here
Well, without that move for C we silently create `FunctionDecl` and exit
whether it has `constexpr` specifier or not.
> it would be more clear to say that a function cannot be constexpr in C
> instead of saying you declared something constexpr that isn't a variable.
> WDYT?
I don't seem to have a problem with this particular message, for C++ similar
invalid use cases clang says and does the same. But If that will help users, ok.
I also use `err_c23_constexpr_not_variable` message when diagnosing constexpr
applied to a type declaration. Should I add more specific message for this case
as well?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73099
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
