hazohelet added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:103-137 +- When describing the failure of static assertion of `==` expression, clang prints the integer + representation of the value as well as its character representation when + the user-provided expression is of character type. If the character is + non-printable, clang now shows the escpaed character. + Clang also prints multi-byte characters if the user-provided expression + is of multi-byte character type. + ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > cor3ntin wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > cor3ntin wrote: > > > > @aaron.ballman One one hand this is nice, on the other hand maybe too > > > > detailed. What do you think? > > > I'm happy with it -- better too much detail than too little, but this > > > really helps users see what's been improved and why it matters. > > > > > > That said, I think `0x0A` and `0x1F30D` would arguably be better than > > > printing the values in decimal. For `\n`, perhaps folks remember that > > > it's decimal value 10, but nobody is going to know what `127757` means > > > compared to the hex representation (esp because the value is specified in > > > hex with the prefix printed in the error message). WDYT? > > For `wchar_t`, `charN_t` I think that makes sense. > > for `char`... hard to know, I think this is mostly useful for people who > > treat char as some kind of integer. I could go either way. using hex > > consistently seems reasonable > I don't insist on using hex, but I have a slight preference for using it > consistently everywhere. CC @cjdb for more opinions since this relates to > user experience of diagnostics. I generally agree that hex code would be better for characters. I think we still have some arguable points. 1. Should we print the unsigned code point or the (possibly signed) integer? (e.g. `0xFF` vs `-0x01` for `(char)-1`, on targets where `char` is signed) 2. Should we print the hex code when the other subexpression of the `==` expression is not a textual type? (e.g. `0x11` vs `17` for LHS of `(char)17 == 11`) For 1, I think we should always print unsigned code point for all textual types for consistency. Also we don't want to print `-0x3` for `L'\xFFFD'` on targets where `wchar_t` is signed and 16-bit width (I haven't checked whether that target exists, though). For 2, I want to see decimal (possibly signed) integer if the other side of the expression is not textual type. Displaying `expression evaluates to ''<FF>' (0xFF) == 255'` for the following code would be highly confusing. ``` static_assert((char)-1 == (unsigned char)-1); ``` WDYT? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D155610/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D155610 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
