Endilll wrote: > There's some danger here. _BitInt is a C23 feature as are enumerations with a > fixed underlying type. Enumerations with a fixed underlying type explicitly > disallow using a bit-precise integer type as the underlying type. See C23 > 6.7.2.2p4, which says in part, "For all the integer constant expressions > which make up the values of the enumeration constants, there shall be a type > capable of representing all the values that is a standard or extended signed > or unsigned integer type, or char.".
Thank you for pointing out to this! But it's not clear to me whether this was an explicit decision to not add bit-precise integers here, or just nobody cared enough to push for that. Because use case we have on our hands seems legit to me. > Would it perhaps make sense to handle the common path first, see what usage > experience finds in the wild, and then consider non_storable in the future? Yeah, we should collect more evidence once we start sprinkle `preferred_type` around, with relevant diagnostics enabled (and implemented). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69104 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
