erik.pilkington added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:4312
+ } else if (MD && isLambdaCallOperator(MD)
+ && !Info.checkingPotentialConstantExpression()) {
// We're in a lambda; determine the lambda capture field maps.
----------------
faisalv wrote:
> How about we add a comment here along the lines of: Do not attempt to create
> the variable-reference to closure data member map while 'constexpr' checking
> a lambda's function call operator (standard reference). Currently constpexpr
> checking is done right after the end of the function definition for the
> syntehsized call operator marked explicitly constexpr - which occurs prior to
> adding the captures map to the closure object. Alternatively we could have
> conditioned the check at the end of the function body to bypass lambda call
> operators and then invoke the constexpr check once the lambda is completely
> processed.
>
> Between you and me, I'm a little torn about this approach - if you can make
> an argument to consider your approach over this one - i think i could be
> swayed (if i'm not already ;) - unless of course richard weighs in as a tie
> breaker.
Sure, added a version of that comment in the patch. I could go either way here
too, but I like your approach because a) it makes the constant evaluator do
just the work that is necessary when checkingPotentialConstantExpression(), and
b) special-casing here is simpler and more precise than doing it in Sema.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45194
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
