[cfe-dev] [RFC] Handling implementation limits

[Craig Topper via cfe-dev]

Maybe its -ansi and not -Wpedantic. I admit I didn't check exactly. It just
knew there was some warning.

~Craig


On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:50 AM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Mark de
> Wever
> > via cfe-dev
> > Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2020 7:42 AM
> > To: Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
> > Cc: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [cfe-dev] [RFC] Handling implementation limits
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 01:52:55PM -0800, Craig Topper wrote:
> > > 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++.
> >
> > These are part of the limits of the standards, else they can be added to
> > the Non standard limits.
>
> I'm not sure why we're generating warnings under -Wpedantic in this case,
> actually.  Neither C nor C++ actually forbids string literals longer than
> the limit; they just don't require implementations to accept them.
> -Wpedantic is not supposed to contain portability warnings.
>
> -Eli
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20200106/975fdc7e/attachment.html>