r213657 - Provide extra information in the "integer constant is too large" diagnostic. This will be used to improve other diagnostics.

[Aaron Ballman]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>>  def ext_integer_too_large_for_signed : ExtWarn<
>> -  "integer constant is larger than the largest %0-bit signed integer
>> type">,
>> -  InGroup<DiagGroup<"implicitly-unsigned-literal">>;
>> +  "integer constant evaluates to value %0 that cannot be represented as a
>> "
>> +  "%1-bit signed integer">,
>> InGroup<DiagGroup<"implicitly-unsigned-literal">>;
>>
>> This should probably go on to say that we're interpreting the value as
>> unsigned.
>>
>> I also think we should have separate diagnostics for the case where we
>> evaluate a constant expression (which should include the 'evaluates to value
>> %0' part) and the case where it's a literal (where we shouldn't). We don't
>> need to repeat things that are literally present in the source code. (Sorry
>> for suggesting the unconditional change here, I hadn't really looked at the
>> use cases other than the one in SemaDeclAttr.cpp)
>
>
> Actually, more than this, I think the original diagnostic text was better
> than any of the updated wordings in the case of a literal. The bit-width is
> incidental; the point is that the literal doesn't fit in the largest signed
> type.

What about literals whose suffix defines the type, like 90000000000000000000UL?

~Aaron