aaronpuchert added a comment. In D59402#1516432 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59402#1516432>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Also, we're not attempting to recover from the error, which is a good point > that @thakis raised. aka, if you apply the fix-it, you should also treat the > declaration as though it were declared `static`. I think the recovery rule only applies to errors, there is no need to recover from a warning. If we attempted recovery from a warning, we might generate different object code depending on the warning level. But I think your original comment nails it: we can't be really sure that this is the right fix, and my empirical data doesn't (necessarily) translate well to writing new code with the warning on. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59402/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59402 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
