jtmott-intel marked an inline comment as done.
jtmott-intel added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:7939
"to a non-const integer (%0 invalid)">;
+def err_overflow_builtin_extint_size : Error<
+ "_ExtInt argument larger than 64-bits to overflow builtin requires runtime "
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > Mentioning target-specific support here seems incorrect. @rjmccall I cannot
> > think of a better wording, can you?
> "overflow builtins do not support _ExtInt operands of more than %0 bits on
> this target"? I don't think it's unreasonable to mention the
> target-specificness of it. Hard-coding the number 64 in the diagnostic
> seems excessively targeted, though.
I discovered there's a good existing message I could use that already takes the
bitwidth as a parameter. I decided not to add a new one. Thoughts/preferences?
Here's how the message would come out.
test.c:5:43: error: signed _ExtInt of bit sizes greater than 128 not
supported
_Bool status = __builtin_mul_overflow(x, y, &result);
^
1 error generated.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81420/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81420
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
