================
@@ -1039,7 +1039,8 @@ def err_opencl_invalid_param : Error<
"declaring function parameter of type %0 is not allowed%select{; did you
forget * ?|}1">;
def err_opencl_invalid_return : Error<
"declaring function return value of type %0 is not allowed %select{; did you
forget * ?|}1">;
-def warn_enum_value_overflow : Warning<"overflow in enumeration value">;
+def ext_c23_enum_value_int_overflow : Extension<"incremented enumerator value
that is exceeding range of 'int' is a C23 extension">, InGroup<C23>;
+def warn_c17_compat_enum_value_int_overflow : Warning<"incremented enumerator
value that is exceeding range of 'int' is incompatible with C standards before
C23">, InGroup<CPre23Compat>;
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
```suggestion
def ext_c23_enum_value_int_overflow : Extension<
"incremented enumerator value which exceeds the range of 'int' is a C23
extension">,
InGroup<C23>;
def warn_c17_compat_enum_value_int_overflow : Warning<
"incremented enumerator value which exceeds the range of 'int' is
incompatible with "
"C standards before C23">, InGroup<CPre23Compat>;
```
Some wording tweaks and may need reformatting, but trying to keep it under 80
columns. However, would it make sense to use `ext_c23_enum_value_not_int` and
`warn_c17_compat_enum_value_not_int` instead as they're basically warning about
the same thing? See suggestion below.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103917
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
