1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
|
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
// expected-no-diagnostics
template <class T, class U> constexpr bool is_same_v = false;
template <class T> constexpr bool is_same_v<T, T> = true;
template <class T, class U>
concept is_same = is_same_v<T, U>;
template <class T> struct X {};
template <class T, class U>
concept C1 = is_same<T, X<U>>;
template <class T1> X<X<X<T1>>> t1() {
return []<class T2>(T2) -> X<X<T2>> {
struct S {
static X<X<T2>> f() {
return []<class T3>(T3) -> X<T3> {
static_assert(is_same<T2, X<T1>>);
static_assert(is_same<T3, X<T2>>);
return X<T3>();
}(X<T2>());
}
};
return S::f();
}(X<T1>());
};
template X<X<X<int>>> t1<int>();
#if 0 // FIXME: crashes
template<class T1> auto t2() {
return []<class T2>(T2) {
struct S {
static auto f() {
return []<class T3>(T3) {
static_assert(is_same<T2, X<T1>>);
static_assert(is_same<T3, X<T2>>);
return X<T3>();
}(X<T2>());
}
};
return S::f();
}(X<T1>());
};
template auto t2<int>();
static_assert(is_same<decltype(t2<int>()), X<X<X<int>>>>);
template<class T1> C1<X<X<T1>>> auto t3() {
return []<C1<T1> T2>(T2) -> C1<X<T2>> auto {
struct S {
static auto f() {
return []<C1<T2> T3>(T3) -> C1<T3> auto {
return X<T3>();
}(X<T2>());
}
};
return S::f();
}(X<T1>());
};
template C1<X<X<int>>> auto t3<int>();
static_assert(is_same<decltype(t3<int>()), X<X<X<int>>>>);
#endif
namespace GH95735 {
int g(int fn) {
return [f = fn](auto tpl) noexcept(noexcept(f)) { return f; }(0);
}
int foo(auto... fn) {
// FIXME: This one hits the assertion "if the exception specification is dependent,
// then the noexcept expression should be value-dependent" in the constructor of
// FunctionProtoType.
// One possible solution is to update Sema::canThrow() to consider expressions
// (e.g. DeclRefExpr/FunctionParmPackExpr) involving unexpanded parameters as Dependent.
// This would effectively add an extra value-dependent flag to the noexcept expression.
// However, I'm afraid that would also cause ABI breakage.
// [...f = fn](auto tpl) noexcept(noexcept(f)) { return 0; }(0);
[...f = fn](auto tpl) noexcept(noexcept(g(fn...))) { return 0; }(0);
return [...f = fn](auto tpl) noexcept(noexcept(g(f...))) { return 0; }(0);
}
int v = foo(42);
} // namespace GH95735
|
