rupprecht added a comment. In D144285#4163004 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144285#4163004>, @cor3ntin wrote:
> If however we find this change to disruptive, we should inform WG21. Thanks for the explanation, I think I understand the issue now. I got totally thrown off by the title -- it's not about literally writing `static_assert(false)`, it's about deferring `static_assert` evaluation to template instantiations. Being able to write `static_assert(false)` (or any falsy constant expression) is just the common use case for this. So possibly the most trivial example of something that used to break, but now builds: template <typename> void Fail() { static_assert(false, "my assertion failed"); } ... but will still fail as soon as you invoke `Fail<any_type>()` somewhere. It doesn't look like there's a lot of impact from this, and the breakages are corner cases like this. It might be worth mentioning this one case to WG21 but I'm not sure what I would change about the wording. ================ Comment at: clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html:14915 <tr class="open" id="2518"> <td><a href="https://wg21.link/cwg2518">2518</a></td> <td>review</td> ---------------- Is it possible to make this link point to https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2518.html? This link is inaccessible to anyone not on ISO. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144285/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144285 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits