search for: xiangl

...gives an error when > 32-bit unsigned value specified. *[g++]* g++ gives an error for any values <0 and >65535. I am wondering should we let Clang's diagnostics match g++ to make things clearer to the user? Or why Clang emits an error for *>32-bit unsigned value* only? Thank you, Xiangling -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201030/d7cb5ddc/attachment.html>

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:03 PM Xiangling Liao via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I noticed that there are some diagnostics discrepancies between clang and gcc related to `__attribute__((constructor(n)))` and `__attribute__((destructor(n)))`. > > [clang] > It seems priorities >6553...