From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3A593858D33 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:23:20 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A3A593858D33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org A3A593858D33 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1700587401; cv=none; b=C+BTA4+RX4TBa5z+vgCNQr5dwymheHMuCb/XK7D5IafDxAmaeXM5/K7cdyIgTz/cVd/njZkuNvyk2o8kmBsfOUWk5VVrFQ3h+JOyurRhGq/RGpg+zNN3C1QpmIUzWmDAqc7Ub79wnzSVWFJXce23x3Dw/zDCr6UuWlwpFmVXf3E= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1700587401; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CBAtzVlRsE9y3pUiXTNIVyfS/2Hnw6qw4bdxfaB+LWU=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=LWU7uFdCCTTbtCvI6K1DXwsqKp357wU5R/p4hxFzYJM9qHEvVG/+hV+Vvl9+3A04gTkcLc2Z0NlbQgCzoxEEKPKJbTiuEC9aT54983d/LSTIUYjpFGbCn/BfYC8Cx3pPl2go5OtMa1hZTn8T8K+62W8IcYetlPGg22tOVy3teqg= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1700587400; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=a171ukOVqWWZNcOt4AuPyQzEj46qS8/9Qn+Tk+vsbn0=; b=BfcS+yipUOtuazyAiRjuxBqY5+UxZY6O/HrHHupSbg3T0r4BCpu97rX1V6LecgE5j2kLHO rUc9OQGZDph0xLth32gXvwoGQ24bDx96sUUsHSZyiHViwqP9RziwJJYOzt919YKD7V91JF jHTc5h1knNUn00i5h0+G0ZrcW9OwsKk= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-482-fYuiluyVNiGnTuG_aImfkg-1; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 12:23:19 -0500 X-MC-Unique: fYuiluyVNiGnTuG_aImfkg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF279185A781 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.194.53]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81D5010F44; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 3ALHNGd54130901 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 21 Nov 2023 18:23:16 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 3ALHNFGF4130900; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 18:23:15 +0100 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 18:23:15 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Jason Merrill , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] c++, v3: Implement C++26 P2741R3 - user-generated static_assert messages [PR110348] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 06:17:02PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > The > static_assert (false, "foo"_myd); > in the new testcase shows where it is valid (in C++26 and as extension in > older standards). For C++26 we could use unevaluated string literal rather > than string literal in the wording, but C++23 and earlier don't have that, > so we would need to say something like non user-defined string literal without > encoding prefix or object with 'size' and 'data' members. Or do you want to just use error_at (location, "% message must be a " "unevaluated string literal or object with " "% and % members"); wording (even when it is in C++26 term) regardless of the -std= level? Jakub