================
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ using r1i2 = r1<char>; // expected-error {{constraints not
satisfied for class t
template<typename... Ts> requires
false_v<requires (Ts... ts) {requires ((sizeof(ts) == 2) && ...);}>
// expected-note@-1 {{because 'false_v<requires (short ts, unsigned short ts)
{ requires (sizeof (ts) == 2) && (sizeof (ts) == 2); }>'}}
-// expected-note@-2 {{because 'false_v<requires (short ts) { requires (sizeof
(ts) == 2); }>' evaluated to false}}
+// expected-note@-2 {{because 'false_v<requires (short ts) { requires sizeof
(ts) == 2; }>' evaluated to false}}
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
Thats the discussion we had in a separate thread, we don't really see how,
without modifying the ParenExpr to say that it is the result of a fold expr
expansion.
As far as 'modify the ast', depending on your perspective/mental model here,
the parens are a part of the 'fold expr' rather than part of the expr being
folded. In this case, if you consider the `( ) && ...` to effectively be the
fold expr syntax, removing it seems to make a ton of sense.
But yeah, we couldn't think of a good way to suppress the warning otherwise
(or, like i mentioned, a flag on `ParenExpr` to say that the `ParenExpr` is a
part of a single-element-fold-expr-expansion). The diagnostic just sees the
expression after expansion, so as far as it knows, you did `if ((a == b))`
instead of `if ((a==b) && ...)` but only had a single element.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110761
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
