| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
constexpr int fn1() {
if constexpr (std::is_constant_evaluated()) // condition is always true!
return 0;
else
return 1;
}
constexpr int fn2() {
if (std::is_constant_evaluated())
return 0;
else
return 1;
}
Solves PR42977
Reviewers: rsmith, aaron.ballman
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69518
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Patch by Tyker!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60934
llvm-svn: 360311
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This caused Clang to start erroring on the following:
struct S {
template <typename = int> explicit S();
};
struct T : S {};
struct U : T {
U();
};
U::U() {}
$ clang -c /tmp/x.cc
/tmp/x.cc:10:4: error: call to implicitly-deleted default constructor of 'T'
U::U() {}
^
/tmp/x.cc:5:12: note: default constructor of 'T' is implicitly deleted
because base class 'S' has no default constructor
struct T : S {};
^
1 error generated.
See discussion on the cfe-commits email thread.
This also reverts the follow-ups r359966 and r359968.
> this patch adds support for the explicit bool specifier.
>
> Changes:
> - The parsing for the explicit(bool) specifier was added in ParseDecl.cpp.
> - The storage of the explicit specifier was changed. the explicit specifier was stored as a boolean value in the FunctionDeclBitfields and in the DeclSpec class. now it is stored as a PointerIntPair<Expr*, 2> with a flag and a potential expression in CXXConstructorDecl, CXXDeductionGuideDecl, CXXConversionDecl and in the DeclSpec class.
> - Following the AST change, Serialization, ASTMatchers, ASTComparator and ASTPrinter were adapted.
> - Template instantiation was adapted to instantiate the potential expressions of the explicit(bool) specifier When instantiating their associated declaration.
> - The Add*Candidate functions were adapted, they now take a Boolean indicating if the context allowing explicit constructor or conversion function and this boolean is used to remove invalid overloads that required template instantiation to be detected.
> - Test for Semantic and Serialization were added.
>
> This patch is not yet complete. I still need to check that interaction with CTAD and deduction guides is correct. and add more tests for AST operations. But I wanted first feedback.
> Perhaps this patch should be spited in smaller patches, but making each patch testable as a standalone may be tricky.
>
> Patch by Tyker
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60934
llvm-svn: 360024
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
this patch adds support for the explicit bool specifier.
Changes:
- The parsing for the explicit(bool) specifier was added in ParseDecl.cpp.
- The storage of the explicit specifier was changed. the explicit specifier was stored as a boolean value in the FunctionDeclBitfields and in the DeclSpec class. now it is stored as a PointerIntPair<Expr*, 2> with a flag and a potential expression in CXXConstructorDecl, CXXDeductionGuideDecl, CXXConversionDecl and in the DeclSpec class.
- Following the AST change, Serialization, ASTMatchers, ASTComparator and ASTPrinter were adapted.
- Template instantiation was adapted to instantiate the potential expressions of the explicit(bool) specifier When instantiating their associated declaration.
- The Add*Candidate functions were adapted, they now take a Boolean indicating if the context allowing explicit constructor or conversion function and this boolean is used to remove invalid overloads that required template instantiation to be detected.
- Test for Semantic and Serialization were added.
This patch is not yet complete. I still need to check that interaction with CTAD and deduction guides is correct. and add more tests for AST operations. But I wanted first feedback.
Perhaps this patch should be spited in smaller patches, but making each patch testable as a standalone may be tricky.
Patch by Tyker
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60934
llvm-svn: 359949
|
|
|
Summary:
This patch implements `__builtin_is_constant_evaluated` as specifier by [P0595R2](https://wg21.link/p0595r2). It is built on the back of Bill Wendling's work for `__builtin_constant_p()`.
More tests to come, but early feedback is appreciated.
I plan to implement warnings for common mis-usages like those belowe in a following patch:
```
void foo(int x) {
if constexpr (std::is_constant_evaluated())) { // condition is always `true`. Should use plain `if` instead.
foo_constexpr(x);
} else {
foo_runtime(x);
}
}
```
Reviewers: rsmith, MaskRay, bruno, void
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: dexonsmith, zoecarver, fdeazeve, kristina, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55500
llvm-svn: 359067
|
