================
@@ -2884,6 +2884,12 @@ def warn_cxx11_compat_constexpr_body_multiple_return :
Warning<
InGroup<CXXPre14Compat>, DefaultIgnore;
def note_constexpr_body_previous_return : Note<
"previous return statement is here">;
+def err_ms_constexpr_not_distinct : Error<
+ "[[msvc::constexpr]] cannot be applied to a %select{constexpr|consteval}0
function %1">;
----------------
RIscRIpt wrote:
tl;dr afterall I would keep it as-is.
Sorry, I overestimated this possibility.
> attribute 'msvc::constexpr' cannot be applied to the virtual function %1
This could be replaced with existing diagnostic
```
def err_constexpr_virtual : Error<"virtual function cannot be constexpr">;
```
However, two other variants of this new diagnostic:
> attribute 'msvc::constexpr' cannot be applied to the constexpr function %1
> attribute 'msvc::constexpr' cannot be applied to the consteval function %1
Are not easily replaceable. The most similar diagnostic I was able to find was:
```
def err_invalid_decl_spec_combination : Error<
"cannot combine with previous '%0' declaration specifier">;
```
But, using this diagnostic, warnings are not consistent:
```
/home/richard/projects/llvm-project/clang/test/SemaCXX/ms-constexpr-invalid.cpp:10:3:
error: cannot combine with previous 'constexpr' declaration specifier
10 | [[msvc::constexpr]] constexpr void f1() {}
| ^~~~
```
`constexpr` comes after `[[msvc::constexpr]]`, but the message implies that
`constexpr` came first.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71300
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
