aaron.ballman added a comment. In D71142#1773933 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71142#1773933>, @Mordante wrote:
> I'll have a look whether I can find a sane maximum width for a bit-field. The limits according to C are the size of the field's declared type (C17 6.7.2.1p4), but it seems that C++ decided it would make sense to turn the bits into padding bits (http://eel.is/c++draft/class.bit#1.sentence-6), so I guess a reasonable implementation limit would be `SIZE_MAX` for the target architecture (aka, `sizeof(size_t) * CHAR_BIT` bits). ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:5186-5189 +def warn_bitfield_width_exceeds_maximum_width: Error< + "width of bit-field %0 doesn't fit in a 64 bit unsigned integer">; +def warn_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_maximum_width : Error< + "width of anonymous bit-field doesn't fit in a 64 bit unsigned integer">; ---------------- rsmith wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > I feel like this situation should be an error rather than a warning -- what > > could the code possibly have meant? > The name of the diagnostic and the kind of diagnostic should agree. Currently > we have `warn_` vs `Error<`. Ooof, good catch! These diagnostics should be renamed to start with `err_` instead. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71142/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71142 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
