rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
A couple of comments on test coverage but otherwise this looks great, thanks!
It'll be instructive to see if people ask for the warning to not be on by
default...
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/expr/expr.const/p2-0x.cpp:517
constexpr void (*pf)() = &f, (*pg)() = &g;
- constexpr bool u13 = pf < pg; // expected-error {{constant expression}}
expected-note {{comparison has unspecified value}}
- constexpr bool u14 = pf == pg;
----------------
Can you undo this change now? We should retain some test coverage ensuring that
we fail constant evaluation in this case.
================
Comment at: clang/test/FixIt/fixit.cpp:298-303
(void)(&t<int>==p); // expected-error {{use '> ='}}
- (void)(&t<int>>=p); // expected-error {{use '> >'}}
#if __cplusplus < 201103L
- (void)(&t<S<int>>>=p); // expected-error {{use '> >'}}
(Shr)&t<S<int>>>>=p; // expected-error {{use '> >'}}
#endif
----------------
We should retain some test coverage that we produce a proper fixit when
splitting `>>=` into `>` `>=`. If you want to move this test away from function
pointer comparison, we can test the same thing with variable templates these
days.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104892/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104892
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
