================
@@ -7801,8 +7801,12 @@ bool Sema::diagnoseArgDependentDiagnoseIfAttrs(const
FunctionDecl *Function,
// It's sane to use the same Args for any redecl of this function,
since
// EvaluateWithSubstitution only cares about the position of each
// argument in the arg list, not the ParmVarDecl* it maps to.
- if (!DIA->getCond()->EvaluateWithSubstitution(
- Result, Context, cast<FunctionDecl>(DIA->getParent()), Args,
ThisArg))
+ // FIXME: This doesn't consider value-dependent cases, because doing so
+ // is very difficult. Ideally, we should handle them more gracefully.
+ if (DIA->getCond()->isValueDependent() ||
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding it here... but I don't think the fixme is
> actually valid. We can't actually CHECK value-dependent cases here, this is a
> situation where we just have to decide that diagnose_if succeeded, and catch
> it during a future instantaition, right?
That's what I meant by fix -- once we have the instantiation, it's no longer
value dependent and we should catch it then. So this would do the usual
two-step dance where we check the non-dependent bits as soon as we can, and
then the dependent bits when rebuilding from tree transform.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/197647
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
