rsmith added a comment. It seems fine and reasonable to reject this as a violation of an implementation limit. Can we actually support the full range 2^64 bits range, or would it be wiser to pick a smaller limit? (There's at least no point in allowing bit-widths that would mean the size of the bitfield doesn't fit in `size_t`, which means no more than 35 bits for a 32-bit target.)
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:5186-5189 +def warn_bitfield_width_exceeds_maximum_width: Error< + "width of bit-field %0 doesn't fit in a 64 bit unsigned integer">; +def warn_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_maximum_width : Error< + "width of anonymous bit-field doesn't fit in a 64 bit unsigned integer">; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > I feel like this situation should be an error rather than a warning -- what > could the code possibly have meant? The name of the diagnostic and the kind of diagnostic should agree. Currently we have `warn_` vs `Error<`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71142/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71142 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
