AaronBallman wrote: > I agree, it's literally just a warning correction, and people building this > release of llvm with a newer clang can configure it to disable this warning - > I just wasn't sure what the general policy around this kind of thing was > which is why I made a PR and asked for advice :D > > @AaronBallman that said I'm not sure this change to the underlying type would > impact anything - the unsigned and int are the same size, and the value is > stored in an explicitly `unsigned` bitfield which is the source of the > warning.
FWIW, I was thinking less about the size and more about the range of valid values for the enumeration. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138337 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
