ojhunt 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.
ah - I thought you were thinking in terms of the ms padding behavior :D 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
