aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM aside from a commenting request.
================
Comment at: test/Sema/warn-conditional-emum-types-mismatch.c:19
+
+int get_flag_anon_enum(int cond) {
+ return cond ? A : C;
----------------
xbolva00 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > xbolva00 wrote:
> > > Gcc warns here, but Clang does not warn when A != C..
> > >
> > > So not sure here..
> > My gut reaction is that I think Clang should warn here as well because the
> > code pattern is confusing, but I'd also say that if there's a lot of false
> > positives where the code is sensible, it may make sense to suppress the
> > diagnostic. One situation I was thinking of where you could run into
> > something like this is:
> > ```
> > enum {
> > STATUS_SUCCESS,
> > STATUS_FAILURE,
> > ...
> > MAX_BASE_STATUS_CODE
> > };
> >
> > enum ExtendedStatusCodes {
> > STATUS_SOMETHING_INTERESTING = MAX_BASE_STATUS_CODE + 1000,
> > ...
> > };
> >
> > int whatever(void) {
> > return some_condition() ? STATUS_SOMETHING_INTERESTING : STATUS_SUCCESS;
> > }
> > ```
> +1
Can you add some comments to the test case explaining that we purposefully
differ from GCC here and why?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67919/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67919
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
