================ @@ -3153,6 +3153,12 @@ def err_invalid_branch_protection_spec : Error< "invalid or misplaced branch protection specification '%0'">; def warn_unsupported_branch_protection_spec : Warning< "unsupported branch protection specification '%0'">, InGroup<BranchProtection>; +def warn_attribute_underlying_type_mismatch : Warning< + "underlying type %0 of enumeration %1 doesn't match bit-field type %2">, + InGroup<BitFieldType>; +def warn_attribute_bool_bitfield_width : Warning< + "bit-field that holds a boolean value should have width of 1 instead of %0">, ---------------- AaronBallman wrote:
Thinking out loud: do we want to diagnose this situation at all? It leaves me wondering why we wouldn't also issue `bit-field that holds a 'short' should have a width of 16 instead of N`, etc. On the one hand, bool is a bit special given that it's a 1-bit type. But on the other hand: 1) what's the harm in this pattern, 2) how does a user silence this diagnostic in the case then intentionally want a 2-bit bool aside from disabling the diagnostic entirely? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69104 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
