[cfe-commits] Patch - Fix range-based for-loop so that it forms proper integer literals

[Richard Smith]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for catching this, and my apologies for the delay in getting back
to you.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:26, Richard Trieu <rtrieu at google.com> wrote:
> The code for range-based for-loops makes a bad integer literal expression
> which has a mis-match between the size of the literal and the integer
> type. This causes an assert to be thrown when IsIntegerConstant() is
> called on it. For this patch,
>
> 1) the assert that checks bit width is copied from IsIntegerConstant()
> into the integer literal constructor.

This looks fine.

> 2) a new static function was written so that it automatically selects
the > correct size integer and returns a proper integer literal
>
> 3) the range-based for-loops now use the function in #2 to get the right
> integer literal

I'd prefer for us to always use ptrdiff_t[*] for this (which is guaranteed
to be big enough), and to extend the integer to fit, rather than picking a
'big enough' type based on the integer's value.

[*] I think this actually needs to be the appropriate ptrdiff_t for the
address space of the array.

Thanks!
Richard