[clang] Remove FEM_Indeterminable

[ojhunt]

Remove FEM_Indeterminable as it is unused and cannot be stored safely in an unsigned bitfield

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang

Author: Oliver Hunt (ojhunt)

Changes

Remove FEM_Indeterminable as it is unused and cannot be stored safely in an unsigned bitfield

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137247.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.h (+1-4)

diff --git a/clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.h b/clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.h
index bbebf7af9ede3..1bfc0d8e88556 100644
--- a/clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.h
+++ b/clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.h
@@ -304,10 +304,7 @@ class LangOptionsBase {
   };
 
   /// Possible float expression evaluation method choices.
-  enum FPEvalMethodKind {
-    /// The evaluation method cannot be determined or is inconsistent for this
-    /// target.
-    FEM_Indeterminable = -1,
+  enum FPEvalMethodKind : unsigned {
     /// Use the declared type for fp arithmetic.
     FEM_Source = 0,
     /// Use the type double for fp arithmetic.

[ojhunt]

@zahiraam you added these originally, I can't find any use of FEM_Indeterminable, and no obvious place where any one is doing <0 or <FEM_Source so removing it seems reasonable?

Because language options, etc are stored in unsigned bitfields a negative enum will always come out wrong (the warning being emitted now that we do actually check against a stated preferred_type is correct here). I considered just making it 4 but given it's not used I'm not sure there's a reason to keep it around at all?

[AaronBallman]

Why did this get merged before there were any reviews or responses?

[ojhunt]

Hmmm, I thought it had been?

[ojhunt]

I've reverted, not sure why I thought it had been reviewed?

[AaronBallman]

I've reverted, not sure why I thought it had been reviewed?

Thanks! And I'm happy enough blaming GitHub's poor Ux for all confusion. :-)

@zahiraam -- any chance you can look into this?

[zahiraam]

I've reverted, not sure why I thought it had been reviewed?

Thanks! And I'm happy enough blaming GitHub's poor Ux for all confusion. :-)

@zahiraam -- any chance you can look into this?

Yes I can, in a couple of days. @ojhunt I hope this is OK?

[ojhunt]

@zahiraam it's currently causing a warning (@Endilll asking for an update is why I ended up looking at this on my phone)

[zahiraam]

@zahiraam it's currently causing a warning (@Endilll asking for an update is why I ended up looking at this on my phone)

What is the warning?

[nico]

What is the warning?

=> #137247