aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM, though I would appreciate adding the other test case from my comments
since it's interesting behavior.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Interp.cpp:345-352
+ if ((S.Current->getDepth() + 1) > S.getLangOpts().ConstexprCallDepth) {
+ S.FFDiag(S.Current->getSource(OpPC),
+ diag::note_constexpr_depth_limit_exceeded)
+ << S.getLangOpts().ConstexprCallDepth;
+ return false;
+ }
+
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> `-fconstexpr-depth` sets the number of *recursive* constexpr calls, but this
> looks like it's measuring the depth of the call stack regardless of whether
> there's recursion or not. Can you add a test where you set this value to
> something low and make nested calls that exceed that depth?
>
> (Also, there's `-fconstexpr-steps`
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#cmdoption-fconstexpr-steps we'll
> need to support at some point, in case you weren't aware of the option.)
Whelp, TIL that our docs are wrong and should be updated (I'll take care of
that): https://godbolt.org/z/ahPjPnhGr
It has nothing to do with recursion, that's just the way in which you'd
typically run into it.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148614/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148614
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
