Summary:
In our codebase, `static_assert(std::some_type_trait<Ts...>::value, "msg")`
(where `some_type_trait` is an std type_trait and `Ts...` is the
appropriate template parameters) account for 11.2% of the `static_assert`s.
In these cases, the `Ts` are typically not spelled out explicitly, e.g.
`static_assert(std::is_same<SomeT::TypeT, typename SomeDependentT::value_type>::value, "message");`
The diagnostic when the assert fails is typically not very useful, e.g.
`static_assert failed due to requirement 'std::is_same<SomeT::TypeT, typename SomeDependentT::value_type>::value' "message"`
This change makes the diagnostic spell out the types explicitly , e.g.
`static_assert failed due to requirement 'std::is_same<int, float>::value' "message"`
See tests for more examples.
After this is submitted, I intend to handle
`static_assert(!std::some_type_trait<Ts...>::value, "msg")`,
which is another 6.6% of static_asserts.
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54903
llvm-svn: 348239
Clement Courbet