Quuxplusone added a comment. In D119094#3301403 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119094#3301403>, @sammccall wrote:
> In D119094#3301297 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119094#3301297>, @Quuxplusone > wrote: > >> Unfortunately some existing tests fail: >> https://reviews.llvm.org/harbormaster/unit/view/2282838/ >> I haven't yet figured out why consteval functions are considered to have >> `FD->isInvalidDecl()`. There's also an Objective-C failure that I assume >> indicates sometimes (when this is a //method// not a //function//) we have >> no `FD` at all. I'd need to solve both of these problems (the former being >> the difficult one) before I can make progress here. > > The example seems to be invalid even apart from the missing return value. (I > assume on purpose). Ohhh, wow, I had missed that. In that case, I'm shocked that Clang isn't giving any more serious error message: shouldn't it be considered invalid, and diagnosed as an error, to have a `constexpr` definition followed by a `consteval` redefinition? https://godbolt.org/z/vKjGvEor8 However, I think the pattern of operators used (`++--*/*/`) indicates that the original author made a typo there, and it should always have been `+-+-*/*/`. So I'll feel good about changing that test. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119094/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119094 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
