Anastasia added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaOpenCL/unsupported.cl:11
+#ifndef BITFIELDS_EXT
+// expected-error@-2 {{bit-fields are not supported in OpenCL}}
+#endif
----------------
svenvh wrote:
> 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.
Hyphenated words are often split so we could also go for
`__cl_clang_bit_fields`? But I think this might be more confusing...
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101843/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101843
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
