aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-consteval.cpp:603
+
+long f(); //expected-note {{declared here}}
+auto consteval g(auto a) {
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-consteval.cpp:608
+
+auto e = g(f()); // expected-error{{is not a constant expression}}
expected-note {{non-constexpr function 'f' cannot be used in a constant
expression}}
+
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-consteval.cpp:612
+static_assert(is_same<long, T>::value);
+
+} // namespace unevaluated
----------------
Here's an interesting test case:
```
#include <typeinfo>
struct S {
virtual void f();
};
struct D : S {
void f() override;
};
consteval S *get_s() { return nullptr; }
void func() {
(void)typeid(*get_s());
}
```
`typeid` still needs to evaluate its operand (due to the polymorphic return
type of `*get_s()`), and so you should get a diagnostic about evaluating the
side effects by calling `get_s()`. I think this then runs into
https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#13.sentence-3 and we should diagnose?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106302/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106302
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
