rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/Expr.h:3029
+ assert((CastExprBits.BasePathSize == BasePathSize) &&
+ "BasePathSize overflow!");
assert(CastConsistency());
----------------
riccibruno wrote:
> lebedev.ri wrote:
> > riccibruno wrote:
> > > It cannot overflow now, but someone in the future is going
> > > to shrink `CastExprBitfields::BasePathSize`.
> > Can you move that static assert here instead of deleting it?
> I am not sure it is really useful since when someone will want to
> shrink it, it will be stored as `unsigned BasePathSite : x;`. What we
> don't want is having `x` too small. However `numeric_limits` will
> be based on the underlying type of the bit-field and so will never fail.
>
> Storing it as something other than an unsigned, say a short, would work,
> but it will pack poorly with MSVC.
>
> Hopefully the comment in `CastExprBitfields` will tell people to not shrink it
> mindlessly.
I agree that the type-based numeric limit is not useful if we're anticipating
it becoming a bit-field. The comment seems fine since it's in the code that
would need to be edited.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56358/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56358
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
