cwarner-8702 wrote: Thanks @AaronBallman!
> I don't think we want constant expression evaluation to fail based on an > input parameter. It will already fail if the inputs as signed and expression overflows, so this seems like a case that all callers will have to deal with anyway. > I think a better approach would be a new interface which doesn't return the > APValue/APSInt directly, but instead returns something more like: I can work with that! Still open to other opinions or ideas too. 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
