[PATCH] D155610: [Clang][Sema] Fix display of characters on static assertion failure

[Corentin Jabot via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

cor3ntin added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/static-assert.cpp:287
+  static_assert((char16_t)L'ゆ' == L"C̵̭̯̠̎͌ͅť̺"[1], ""); // expected-error {{failed}} \
+                                                  // expected-note {{evaluates to ''ゆ' (0x3086) == '̵' (0x335)'}}
+  static_assert(L"＼／"[1] == u'\xFFFD', ""); // expected-error {{failed}} \
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > cor3ntin wrote:
> > > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > > > The C++23 escaped string formatting facility would not generate a trailing combining character like this. I recommend following suit.
> > > > 
> > > > Info on U+0335: https://util.unicode.org/UnicodeJsps/character.jsp?a=0335
> > > > 
> > > This is way outside the scope of the patch. The diagnostic output facility has no understanding of combining characters or graphemes and do not attempt to match std::print. It probably would be an improvement but this patch is not trying to modify how all diagnostics are printed. (all of that logic is in Diagnostic.cpp)
> > This patch is pushing the envelope of what appears in diagnostics. One can also argue that someone writing
> > ```
> > static_assert(false, "\u0301");
> > ```
> > gets what they deserve, but that case does not have a big problem anyway (because the provided message text appears after `: `).
> > 
> > This patch increases the exposure of the diagnostic output facility to input that it does not handle well. I disagree that it is outside the scope of this patch to insist that it does not generate such inputs to the diagnostic output facility (even if a possible solution is to modify the diagnostic output facility first).
> @cor3ntin, do you have status quo examples for how grapheme-extending characters that are not already "problematic" in their original context are emitted in diagnostics in contexts where they are?
Are you looking for that sort of examples? https://godbolt.org/z/c79xWr7Me
That shows that clang has no understanding of graphemes


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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D155610