[PATCH] D155610: [Clang][ExprConstant] Print integer instead of character on static assertion failure

[Corentin Jabot via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

cor3ntin added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/Lexer/cxx1z-trigraphs.cpp:24
 // expected-error at 11 {{}} expected-warning at 11 {{trigraph ignored}}
-// expected-error at 13 {{failed}} expected-warning at 13 {{trigraph ignored}} expected-note at 13 {{evaluates to ''?' == '#''}}
+// expected-error at 13 {{failed}} expected-warning at 13 {{trigraph ignored}} expected-note at 13 {{evaluates to '63 == 35'}}
 // expected-error at 16 {{}}
----------------
tahonermann wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > I think the original diagnostic was actually more understandable as it relates more closely to what's written in the static assertion. I could imagine something like `evaluates to '?' (63) == '#' (35)` would also be reasonable.
> I agree. I would also be ok with printing the integer value as primary with the character as secondary:
>   evaluates to 63 ('?') == 35 ('#')
> 
> There are two kinds of non-printable characters:
>   # Control characters (including new-line)
>   # character values that don't correspond to a character (e.g., lone trailing characters or invalid code unit values).
> For the first case, I would support printing them as either C escapes or universal-character-names. e.g.,
>   evaluates to 0 ('\0') == 1 (\u0001)
> For the second case, I would support printing them as C hex escapes. e.g, 
>   evaluates to -128 ('\x80') == -123 ('\x85')
> 
> 
> For the first case, I would support printing them as either C escapes or universal-character-names. e.g.,

As mentioned before, we should be consistent with what we do for diagnostics messages in general - (`ie `pushEscapedString`).
I check and we already do that. https://godbolt.org/z/doah9YGMT

Question is, why do we sometimes don't?
Note that in general i don't have an opinion about displaying the value of characters literal _in addition_ of the character itself, it seems like a good thing)


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D155610/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D155610