tbaeder marked an inline comment as done. tbaeder added a comment. In D135025#3862031 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135025#3862031>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Do you think we should address some of the FIXMEs with base class ctor > functionality as part of this patch, given that the failures all seem to be > related to that functionality? Or are these failures due to other missing > functionality that happened to be exposed here? IMO it's fine to merge this. From a quick look the problems are: 1. We don't reject non-constexpr functions in a constexpr context. (this is a more general problem and can be tested with simple normal functions, so that's probably a better test) 2. In `ByteCodeExprGen::getFunction()`, we ignore any errors returned, so we can't print a reason for the rejection of the last test. 3. The `AnotherBase` test is rejected properly, but we don't compute the value that was passed to the constructor correctly. This might just be an uninitialized `APValue` because we abort execution, but I'd have to investigate. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135025/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135025 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
