hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/error-dependence.c:18
+ // type is required" is not emitted.
+ ptr > f ? ptr : f; // expected-error {{invalid operands to binary
expression}}
+}
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> hokein wrote:
> > sammccall wrote:
> > > nit: parens would help me understand here :-)
> > >
> > > I don't find this example compelling because we should know that "ptr >
> > > f" is a boolean.
> > >
> > > Can we just have `undefined ? ptr : f`, expecting the only diag to be the
> > > undeclared ident?
> > > I don't find this example compelling because we should know that "ptr >
> > > f" is a boolean.
> >
> > this is a reasonable impression, but in this case, there is no
> > binary-operator `>` -- operands `ptr`, `f` have different types, and
> > invalid for binary operator, instead we build a recovery-expr.
> >
> > so the AST looks like (added in the dump-recovery.c test as well)
> >
> > ```
> > ConditionalOperator> '<dependent type>' contains-errors
> > | |-RecoveryExpr '<dependent type>' contains-errors lvalue
> > | | |-DeclRefExpr 'int *' lvalue Var 0x8fdb620 'ptr' 'int *'
> > | | `-DeclRefExpr 'float' lvalue Var 0x8ffd388 'f' 'float'
> > | |-DeclRefExpr 'int *' lvalue Var 0x8fdb620 'ptr' 'int *'
> > | `-DeclRefExpr 'float' lvalue Var 0x8ffd388 'f' 'float'
> > ```
> >
> > > Can we just have undefined ? ptr : f, expecting the only diag to be the
> > > undeclared ident?
> >
> > no unfortunately. the whole statement is being dropped (we don't preserve
> > this in C/C++).
> `undefined() ? ptr : f` then?
oh, yeah. undefined() is not working (undefined function is implicitly treated
as `int ()` in C), but `call()` would work.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84322/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84322
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
