Timm =?utf-8?q?Bäder?= <tbae...@redhat.com>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/118...@github.com>
================
@@ -14548,8 +14548,21 @@ bool IntExprEvaluator::VisitBinaryOperator(const
BinaryOperator *E) {
return Error(E);
const Expr *LHSExpr = LHSValue.Base.dyn_cast<const Expr *>();
const Expr *RHSExpr = RHSValue.Base.dyn_cast<const Expr *>();
- if (!LHSExpr || !RHSExpr)
- return Error(E);
+ if (!LHSExpr || !RHSExpr) {
+ std::string LHS = LHSValue.toString(Info.Ctx, E->getLHS()->getType());
+ std::string RHS = RHSValue.toString(Info.Ctx, E->getRHS()->getType());
+ Info.FFDiag(E, diag::note_constexpr_pointer_arith_unspecified)
+ << LHS << RHS;
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ if (ArePotentiallyOverlappingStringLiterals(Info, LHSValue, RHSValue)) {
----------------
zygoloid wrote:
Yeah, that's a bit unfortunate. But it's how we order diagnostics in general:
the "context" notes for an error (eg, template instantiation, macro expansion)
appear between the error diagnostic and its proper notes. It'd be nice to
address that in general somehow, but I think the *order* is correct, because
the context notes explain how we got to the immediately preceding diagnostic.
(Another weird thing: the "In file included from" context appears before the
diagnostic whereas other context appears afterwards.)
I've been wondering if we should split the "note" diagnostic category into
"notes" that provide additional information about the diagnostic, and "context"
diagnostics that provide additional information about the location of the
previous diagnostic. We could then de-emphasize the context diagnostics in some
way -- perhaps using a less bright color for them, and perhaps omitting the
snippet -- to make it easier to scan from a diagnostic to its notes.
But obviously none of that is in scope for this PR :)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/118475
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
