[cfe-dev] [RFC] Handling implementation limits

[Craig Topper via cfe-dev]

Do you plan to also support things that aren’t implementation limits but
give warnings under -Wpedantic? For example the length of a string literal
in LiteralSupport.cpp. It checks for something like 509 for C, 4095 for C99
or 65536 for C++.

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 10:46 AM Mark de Wever via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 05:16:33PM +0100, Mark de Wever via cfe-dev wrote:
> > This RFC asks the community for its interest in centralizing Clang's
> > implementation limits and how you feel about the proposed approach.
>
> Thanks for all the feedback!
>
> Based on the feedback given, I've updated the proof-of-concept [D72053].
>
> Added support for some additional features:
>  * Allow limits from the C standard, either sharing the C++ constants or
>    separately.
>  * Allow to document the design choices for the limit.
>  * Allow to track the status of the limit. (This may become obsolete ones
> all
>    limits are implemented, but that can take a while.)
>
> Added some additional fields to test the C support.
>
> Removed the .inc file from the patch, this should not be committed.
>
> Does Objective-C also have limits which should be added?
>
>
> [D72053] https://reviews.llvm.org/D72053
>
> -Mark
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-- 
~Craig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20200104/0bcc89d7/attachment.html>