efriedma-quic wrote: > No. But I am confused, isn't this just shadowing a global variable with a > lesser-scoped one. Are they the same? What behavior do we want here?
This is declaring, then defining, a global variable; sorry if that wasn't clear. Probably should be an error? It'll be confusing no matter what we do. > However, after making the patch and testing it I am not sure what we want. Do > we want to cancel implicit promotions for less-than-ints that possess the > wraps attribute (doesn't sound spec compliant)? Or, should wrapping things > still undergo promotion but now wrap at different bounds than what their > original type specified? I assume for your usage, you want the result of the arithmetic to be the same whether or not the compiler supports the "wraps" attribute, which constrains your choices. > More on this, I don't see how changing implementation from attribute-based to > type-based resolves any of these design decisions. Neither approach is > necessarily easier to implement or to understand for developers, if the right > decisions are made in terms of behavior then the attribute approach can be > just as useful and predictable. If you had a distinct canonical type, you would have had to make explicit decisions about a bunch of these things... and the rest would be stable independent of details of non-canonical type propagation. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86618 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
