sethp wrote: > I'm curious why the removed code was there in the first place.
I had the same thought; there was nothing that was no test trying to produce an empty struct from a bit-cast before this change, which made me think it was (overly) defensive coding that didn't get fully exercised. In a broader sense, I think that's maybe where there's interesting leverage: the constant evaluators in clang (& gcc too) have some, uh, emergent behaviors. It's hard to say whether they're on purpose or not: the testing strategy seems to be largely demonstrative (i.e. "there exists a situation that ought to work out like so") and based on hand-crafted examples. Property-based testing (AKA "fuzz" testing) might offer a win here, if the properties were reasonably coherent to write. It'd be (relatively) easy to write a thing that verified something like "all sub-expressions of a constant-producing expression are themselves constant-producing expressions", which would've caught this bug. What I don't know is whether that property makes sense in the context of C++, though. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82383 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
