AntonBikineev marked an inline comment as done.
AntonBikineev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticCommonKinds.td:198-200
+def err_size_t_literal_too_large: Error<
+ "%select{signed |}0'size_t' literal is out of range of possible "
+ "%select{signed |}0'size_t' values">;
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> I wonder if it'd be better to say `'ssize_t'` instead of `signed 'size_t'`
> here? The latter sounds self-contradictory since `size_t` is an unsigned type.
I thought about it (and actually had it first as ssize_t). The problem with
ssize_t is that it's not defined by C or C++ Standards, AFAIK, but by POSIX.
The proposal calls it "the signed integer type corresponding to std::size_t",
so I decided to shorten it to "signed 'size_t'". However, I don't have strong
opinion on this.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:3895
// be an unsigned int.
bool AllowUnsigned = Literal.isUnsigned || Literal.getRadix() != 10;
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> AntonBikineev wrote:
> > I now begin to think that we should probably also prohibit things like
> > 0x1234z to be implicitly interpreted as unsigned. Wdyt?
> Table 8 says that a `z`-suffixed literal has type `ssize_t` (if the value
> fits) or `size_t` (otherwise), so I think taking `AllowUnsigned` into account
> is correct (although perhaps surprising).
Thanks for pointing this out! Changed it back and fixed the tests.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99456/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99456
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
