Sirraide wrote: > I don't think this would exacerbate it much because this 1) only notes > implicitly generated CTAD guides; 2) won't be chatty if the guide is > generated over a user-defined constructor: we have already pointed to a > feasible source location that makes things clear.
Hmm, yeah, I guess it’s not that bad so long as we don’t end up w/ e.g. 20 extra notes because of this. > Thanks for suggesting a better approach. However, doing so would require big > surgery in our diagnostic building logic for overloads. We don't explain the > reason for deduction failure in an error; instead, we do so in the following > notes. To be clear, we now have ~16 deduction failure kinds, each with its > own diagnostic message. Given that, I don't think it's necessary (and > probably undoable) to special case the CTAD guides for each note... > It's also sad that we're unable to pretty-print the deduction guides in a > diagnostic. If I read it correctly, we currently only support printing > either1) a verbatim code snippet or 2) a FIXIT suggestion. And neither does > work for this case, though. Yeah, I’ve been wanting to try and take a look at some of that, but other things have been getting in the way unfortunately... https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96084 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
