[PATCH] D23035: [Support] Add LLVM_BITFIELD_WIDTH and LLVM_CHECKED_BITFIELD_ASSIGN macros.

[Justin Lebar via llvm-commits]

jlebar added a comment.

> I think we should just encourage this pattern


Do you think it would be an improvement to rewrite clang's Expr.h to this pattern?  Or, more to my point, https://reviews.llvm.org/D23036?  It seems kind of wordy to me, but I'm open to thoughts.

I don't like that this macro obfuscates the code, but I do like that we don't have to rely on people writing correct check-in-range code.  Like, it wasn't at all obvious to me that `foo.x = y; assert(foo.x == y);` was correct, or that it *wouldn't* be correct if the bitfield were signed.  The macro gets that stuff right, which I like.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D23035