On Thu, 15 May 2025 at 13:56, Tomasz Kaminski <tkami...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 2:53 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 May 2025 at 13:43, Tomasz Kaminski <tkami...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 2:41 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 15/05/25 14:35 +0200, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
>> >> >Please also add the message to dg-error check in format_kind_neg.cc.
>> >> >With that LGTM.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, already done locally. Here's what I'm testing now.
>> >
>> > Any reason to not put the whole message "cannot use primary template of
>> > 'std::format_kind'"?
>>
>> It doesn't fit in 80 columns, and doesn't seem to make the test any
>> more or less likely to PASS.
>>
>> e.g. if we change the static_assert message to not use single quotes,
>> or to say 'std::format_kind<R>' or some other change, would we want
>> the test to fail and require changes? Would that improve the value of
>> the test? IMHO it doesn't, because if it matches some substring of the
>> static_assert then the test is working correctly, but I'll change it
>> if you feel strongly.
>>
> Not strongly, but "cannot use primary template" sounds like something that
> may be part of
> unrelated compiler error.
OK, I'll use this and push it:
+// { dg-error "cannot use primary template of 'std::format_kind'" ""
{ target *-*-* } 0 }
> And we do not check that this is produced from static_assert either.
I'm not worried about that. I don't think we need to be too paranoid
here, we control the code and diagnostics from GCC aren't going to
just randomly change without us realising. And it doesn't really
matter whether a "cannot use primary template" diagnostic for
std::format_kind comes from a static assert, or a function using
=delete("reason"), or a custom compiler diagnostic, or something else.
All that matters is that it's ill-formed and the message is fairly
user-friendly.
