rsmith accepted this revision. rsmith added a comment. Thanks! Looks good to me. Please wait a day or so in case Aaron has more comments before going ahead.
================ 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">; ---------------- AntonBikineev wrote: > 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. That makes sense. OK, I don't have a strong opinion either, so let's go with what you have. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:3996-3997 + // If we still couldn't decide a type, we either have 'size_t' literal + // that is out of range or a literal that does not fit in a signed long + // long, but has no U suffix. if (Ty.isNull()) { ---------------- (Mostly to make it clear that this can happen for `size_t` regardless of the `u` suffix.) ================ Comment at: clang/www/cxx_status.html:1273 <td><a href="https://wg21.link/p0330r8">P0330R8</a></td> - <td class="none" align="center">No</td> + <td class="none" align="center">Clang 13</td> </tr> ---------------- 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