faisalv added a comment. In D91035#2383167 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91035#2383167>, @wchilders wrote:
> Generally agree with this direction; Are there plans for migrating > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang/include/clang/Basic/Specifiers.h > in a similar fashion, for consistency? yup - i plan to get around to many of these - assuming time cooperates. Am currently working on Decl::Kind... ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/DeclSpec.h:1837 /// Actually a FunctionDefinitionKind. - unsigned FunctionDefinition : 2; + FunctionDefinitionKind FunctionDefinition : 2; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > I think we need to keep this as `unsigned` because some compilers struggle > with bit-fields of enumeration types (even when the enumeration underlying > type is fixed): https://godbolt.org/z/P8x8Kz As Barry had reminded me - this warning was deemed a bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242. Are you sure we should still tailor our code to appease it? Is there a config file we can use to #define an ENUM_UNSIGNED_BITFIELD(x) or some such - that does the right thing for most compilers - (and are we even comfortable from a style-guide perpective, with such a conditional-define strategy? Your thoughts? Thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91035/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91035 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
