aaron.ballman added a comment. In D132136#3753290 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132136#3753290>, @tbaeder wrote:
> In D132136#3751702 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132136#3751702>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> Would be great if we had a better test here... is there anything we can do >> to validate this is happening other than checking for that one note? > > `EvaluateAsRValue` is called from `Expr::EvaluateAsRValue()`, so I think it > would be possible to write a unittest for this. But I think that would be a > lot of effort just to test this. There is even > `unittests/AST/EvaluateAsRValueTest.cpp` already, but it tests the wrong > thing :( The existing test coverage being wrong seems like all the more reason to add correct test coverage. LValue to RValue conversions are important to get right (lol here's a wonderful demonstration of where we didn't bother to see if we got it right that I accidentally stumbled into when trying to give you a constexpr test case: https://godbolt.org/z/bdxbers3M), especially because they're going to impact which overload gets called when picking between an `&&` and `&` overload. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D132136/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D132136 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
