================
@@ -569,7 +573,8 @@ class Expr : public ValueStmt {
/// Note: This does not perform the implicit conversions required by C++11
/// [expr.const]p5.
bool isCXX11ConstantExpr(const ASTContext &Ctx, APValue *Result = nullptr,
- SourceLocation *Loc = nullptr) const;
+ SourceLocation *Loc = nullptr,
+ bool CheckUnsignedOverflow = false) const;
----------------
cwarner-8702 wrote:
> Given that unsigned overflow is well defined and allowed in constexpr, having
> an argument to disallow it seems a little off.
I agree from the compiler's perspective, but it seems in-line with the purpose
of a `bugprone` clang tidy check: it's a hint that something may warrant
investigation to make sure it is intentional.
> From what I can tell the implementation here can just hard code the value
> internally to false and the public API for this function remains unchanged
I'm not seeing how, since this function sets up the `EvalInfo` that
communications the option to the lower-level `CheckedIntArithmetic` function.
It's not just checking if the expression is constant, it's also calculating the
result, and the overflow is detected during that calculation.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
