[PATCH] D18540: [Sema] Note when we've actually encountered a failure in ExprConstant, and take that into account when looking up objects.

[Richard Smith via cfe-commits]

rsmith added inline comments.

================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/Expr.h:541-546
@@ -540,1 +540,8 @@
 
+    /// \brief Whether the evaluation was unable to reduce a construct to a
+    /// value.
+    ///
+    /// For example, in foo(bar, baz, qux), if evaluating bar fails, we may
+    /// try to evaluate baz and qux anyway.
+    bool HasFailure;
+
----------------
I don't think this provides enough guarantees to be useful as part of the external `EvalStatus` results. Can you sink this into `EvalInfo`? Alternatively, can you merge this with `HasSideEffects`? I don't think we need to maintain a distinction between the two different ways we can get an evaluation result after skipping a subexpression.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D18540