================ @@ -6171,6 +6171,11 @@ def warn_signed_bitfield_enum_conversion : Warning< "signed bit-field %0 needs an extra bit to represent the largest positive " "enumerators of %1">, InGroup<BitFieldEnumConversion>, DefaultIgnore; +def warn_bitfield_too_small_for_integral_type : Warning< + "conversion from %2 (%3 bits) to bit-field %0 (%1 bits) may change value">, + InGroup<BitFieldConversion>, DefaultIgnore; +def note_bitfield_assign : Note< + "Bit-field %0 (%1 bits) is too narrow to store assigned value %2 (%3 bits)">; ---------------- AaronBallman wrote:
```suggestion "bit-field %0 (%1 bits) is too narrow to store assigned value %2 (%3 bits)">; ``` Actually, I don't think we need this note, but we could instead use the generic "declared here" diagnostic (`diag::note_declared_at`). The current note duplicates a lot of information already present in the warning or the source being noted, but once we remove the duplicate information, we're pretty much left with "bit-field declared here". https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68276 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
