rsmith added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:1491
+def err_constexpr_if_condition_expression_is_not_constant : Error<
+  "constexpr if condition is not a constant expression convertible to bool">;
 def err_static_assert_failed : Error<"static_assert failed%select{ %1|}0">;
----------------
mizvekov wrote:
> cor3ntin wrote:
> > mizvekov wrote:
> > > Looks a bit easier to parse the english there.
> > I would rather not change that, to remain consistent with existing 
> > diagnostics involving `constexpr if`
> > But I agree it might be good to change them all
> I see, yeah agreed.
Would it be reasonable to drop the "convertible to bool" part here? We know the 
problem is that the (converted) expression is not a constant expression, not 
that the expression can't be converted to bool, because we handle the 
conversion to bool separately before we get to this diagnostic; I think the 
diagnostic would be clearer if it didn't mention the conversion.


================
Comment at: clang/www/cxx_status.html:1299
       <td><a href="https://wg21.link/P1401R5";>P1401R5</a></td>
-      <td class="none" align="center">No</td>
+      <td class="full" align="center">Clang 13</td>
     </tr>
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > This should be class `unreleased` (yellow) for now so that people can 
> > easily tell what's in the most recent Clang release versus what's 
> > implemented but not released; we convert all the `class="unreleased"` to 
> > `class="full"` when we cut a release.
> Would you prefer I mark it partial for the explicit bool case?
If you're not planning on working on `explicit(bool)` yourself, then I think 
marking it as "partial" might be useful as a reminder that we should go back 
and look at that paper again. Otherwise, I have no strong preference.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D105127/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D105127

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to