rsmith closed this revision. rsmith marked 4 inline comments as done. rsmith added a comment.
Committed as rG4b0029995853fe37d1dc95ef96f46697c743fcad <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG4b0029995853fe37d1dc95ef96f46697c743fcad>. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Type.cpp:1865-1866 // enumeration type in the sense required here. // C++0x: However, if the underlying type of the enum is fixed, it is // considered complete. if (const auto *ET = dyn_cast<EnumType>(CanonicalType)) ---------------- rnk wrote: > Is this C++11 comment still relevant? I assume that `isComplete` handles this > case by returning true, and a forward decl can tell us if the enum is scoped. I don't think this is useful -- and probably nor is the `isComplete` check. I'll look into this in a follow-up commit. ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-enum-compare.cpp:79 - while (B1 == B2); // expected-warning {{comparison of two values with different enumeration types ('name1::Baz' and 'name2::Baz')}} - while (name1::B2 == name2::B3); // expected-warning {{comparison of two values with different enumeration types ('name1::Baz' and 'name2::Baz')}} ---------------- rnk wrote: > It seems more technically correct to say that two values are being compared, > but I don't see how to keep the diagnostic as well factored as you have it. Yeah, I agonized over this a little, but while I agree with you, in the end I think it's not entirely wrong to talk about (eg) a comparing an int with a float, and the ambiguity between types and values there doesn't seem likely to actually be confusing -- I don't think the extra words help comprehension of the diagnostic. I'm happy to change it back, of course. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71576/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71576 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
