svenvh added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1748
+With this extension it is possible to enable bitfields in structs
+or unions using regular OpenCL extension pragma mechanism detailed in
+`the OpenCL Extension Specification, section 1.2
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:16798
}
// OpenCL v1.2 s6.9.c: bitfields are not supported.
+ if (BitWidth && !getOpenCLOptions().isAvailableOption(
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaOpenCL/unsupported.cl:11
+#ifndef BITFIELDS_EXT
+// expected-error@-2 {{bit-fields are not supported in OpenCL}}
+#endif
----------------
The extension has "bitfields" in the name but most diagnostics (including this
one) spell it as "bit-fields". I wonder what the least surprising name would
be? It seems Clang tends to use the hyphenated form in diagnostics and the
non-hyphenated form in e.g. option names (e.g. `fsigned-bitfields`), so using
the non-hyphenated form in the extension name is probably fine.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101843/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101843
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
