I'm a bit surprised that this landed, given that gcc bug. I can see the motivation for the gcc bug: If you say your enum is going to need underlying 8 bits, then warning that your bitfield where you store it is smaller _is_ surprising.
I'm not sure if landing this while gcc still behaves the way it does is a good idea :-( On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Mehdi AMINI <mehdi.am...@apple.com> wrote: > mehdi_amini added a comment. > > > So when this modification tells the developer to add 'unsigned' to their > enum, they are subsequently causing a warning to occur in GCC. > > > > I have commented on the bug on GCC for this ( > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242#c28), but it looks > unlikely to be fixed. > > > > Should we go ahead and add this warning when following its instructions > will cause a warning in the GCC compiler? Even though GCC is at fault here, > I'm not sure what the right thing is to do. > > GCC seems to agree that they should fix it: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ > show_bug.cgi?id=61414 ; so I wouldn't consider it a blocker. > > But I'm not using GCC either, and I don't know what is our usual policy, > so it'd be nice to have another opinion here. > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D24289 > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
