On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> def ext_integer_too_large_for_signed : ExtWarn< >> - "integer constant is larger than the largest %0-bit signed integer >> type">, >> - InGroup<DiagGroup<"implicitly-unsigned-literal">>; >> + "integer constant evaluates to value %0 that cannot be represented as a >> " >> + "%1-bit signed integer">, >> InGroup<DiagGroup<"implicitly-unsigned-literal">>; >> >> This should probably go on to say that we're interpreting the value as >> unsigned. >> >> I also think we should have separate diagnostics for the case where we >> evaluate a constant expression (which should include the 'evaluates to value >> %0' part) and the case where it's a literal (where we shouldn't). We don't >> need to repeat things that are literally present in the source code. (Sorry >> for suggesting the unconditional change here, I hadn't really looked at the >> use cases other than the one in SemaDeclAttr.cpp) > > > Actually, more than this, I think the original diagnostic text was better > than any of the updated wordings in the case of a literal. The bit-width is > incidental; the point is that the literal doesn't fit in the largest signed > type.
What about literals whose suffix defines the type, like 90000000000000000000UL? ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
