[PATCH] Fix regression with noexcept

[David Blaikie]

I'll leave the language lawyering double-check to Richard.

As for the test case - I'd just include one of the two. My example was just
an attempt to experiment with things - whichever you reckon is simpler
seems fine to me unless they exercise interestingly different codepaths.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
wrote:

> When working on diagnosing unevaluated expressions with side effects,
> a regression crept in with seemingly valid code involving noexcept
> expression that would receive an unresolved expression, such as:
>
> template <class T> void f() {}
> int v = noexcept(&f);
>
> This code compiles without warning in gcc, and used to do the same in
> Clang (and result in v being set to 1), but currently causes an
> unreachable assertion. This is captured in PR22072.
>
> This patch fixes the unreachable assertion. I believe it is reasonable
> to expect unresolved expressions in HasSideEffects, and those
> expressions would not have side effects. However, it may also be that
> the noexcept code is ill-formed (see PR15842 for a similar situation,
> which also currently asserts), and the correct fix is to diagnose the
> code as a failed parameter to the noexcept expression.
>
> ~Aaron
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150410/350826d5/attachment.html>