On 2/24/20 12:30 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/20/20 7:27 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This patch improves our concept diagnostics in two ways. First, it sets a
more
precise location for the constraint expressions built in
finish_constraint_binary_op
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/20/20 7:27 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > This patch improves our concept diagnostics in two ways. First, it sets a
> > more
> > precise location for the constraint expressions built in
> > finish_constraint_bi
On 2/20/20 7:27 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This patch improves our concept diagnostics in two ways. First, it sets a more
precise location for the constraint expressions built in
finish_constraint_binary_op. As a result, when a disjunction is unsatisfied we
now print e.g.
.../include/bits
This patch improves our concept diagnostics in two ways. First, it sets a more
precise location for the constraint expressions built in
finish_constraint_binary_op. As a result, when a disjunction is unsatisfied we
now print e.g.
.../include/bits/range_access.h:467:2: note: neither operand
On 12/6/19 3:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I've noticed that while for requires keyword we have a diagnostics like
error_at (cp_lexer_peek_token (parser->lexer)->location,
"% only available with "
"%<-std=c++2a%> or %<-fconcepts%>");
for
Hi!
I've noticed that while for requires keyword we have a diagnostics like
error_at (cp_lexer_peek_token (parser->lexer)->location,
"% only available with "
"%<-std=c++2a%> or %<-fconcepts%>");
for concept keyword we emit
inform
This is not a proper patch. I'm missing the usual changelog and I'm
still running the regression tests, but I wanted to get some opinions
before committing more time to it.
This patch extends the diagnostics for concepts to report precise
failures when constraints are not satisfied. It currently
