erichkeane accepted this revision.
erichkeane added a comment.
Still want a test for E3, a release note, and updating the cxx_status.html.
But those don't need review IMO.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp:2420
+ constexpr E1 x2 = static_cast<E1>(8); // expected-error {{must be
initialized by a constant expression}}
+ // expected-note@-1 {{integer value 8 is outside the valid range of values
[-8, 8) for this enumeration type}}
+
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > Are we ok with how subtle the `[N, M)` syntax is here?
> > > FWIW, I pulled this from diagnostics like:
> > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td#L9904
> > > and
> > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td#L11541
> > Those aren't particularly high quality diagnostics, the first is for
> > builtin ranges (and builtins have notoriously bad diagnostics), the 2nd is
> > for the matrix type, which is only slightly better.
> >
> > That said, if you are ok with it, I'm ok, just somewhat afraid it'll be a
> > touch confusing.
> Yeah, it's not the best diagnostic, to be sure. The trouble is that spelling
> it out makes it worse IMO: `integer value %0 is outside the valid range of
> values %1 (inclusive) and %2 (exclusive) for this enumeration type`
Ok then, I can't think of anything better really (PERHAPS something that says,
`integer value %0 is outside of the valid range of values (%1 - %2 inclusive)
for this enumeration type`, so I'm ok living with it until someone proposes
better in a followup patch.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130058/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130058
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
