rcraik added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:12586
@@ -12585,3 +12585,3 @@
if (!FieldTy->isDependentType()) {
uint64_t TypeSize = Context.getTypeSize(FieldTy);
if (Value.getZExtValue() > TypeSize) {
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > I think the right way to fix this is to call `getIntWidth` here instead of
> > `getTypeSize`, and finesse our error message to clarify that we're talking
> > about the width of the type (the number of value bits) rather than the size
> > of the type (the number of storage bits).
> The implementation of `getIntWidth` currently makes this consideration moot
> at this time, but should this extend to C89 (aside from the `_Bool`
> extension)?
I think we have three options (the special case for _Bool bitfields being
removed in each case):
# change `getTypeSize` to `getIntWidth` and leave the rest of the checks
as-is
# change `getTypeSize` to `getIntWidth` and update the C/MS diagnostic to
either `ExtWarn` or `Warning` (for some or all language levels)
# leave as `getTypeSize` for lower language levels
Opinions?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D10018
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
