aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/Interp/enums.cpp:25
+ SIX = FIVE + 2,
+
+};
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > tbaeder wrote:
> > > shafik wrote:
> > > > Maybe some edge case values for enumerators like `__INT_MAX__ *2U +1U`
> > > > (UINT_MAX)
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > enum E { // warning: enumeration values exceed range of largest integer
> > > > [-Wenum-too-large]
> > > > E1 = -__LONG_MAX__ -1L,
> > > > E2 = __LONG_MAX__ *2UL+1UL
> > > > };
> > > > ```
> > > Hm, looks like that test broke one of the windows builders:
> > > https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/123/builds/13424 - are enums
> > > larger by default on Windows? What do you suggest to fix the test?
> > If we're trying to be compatible with MSVC, we use their rules for picking
> > the underlying type of an enumeration is which not fixed. One way to handle
> > this is to add more RUN lines with explicit triples, but I think we lose
> > too much interesting coverage that way. I'd probably use a `#ifndef
> > _MSC_VER` block to control the expected diagnostics with a comment as to
> > why the diagnostic is not expected on Windows.
> The second builder that broke was a hexagon builder:
> https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/38/builds/6231 - this would still
> fail with the `_MSC_VER` change, right?
Nope, drat.
I would recommend breaking that specific test out into a separate file where we
can add various RUN lines with triples, and the rest of the test can remain
targetless.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134020/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134020
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
