lebedev.ri added a comment. In D63423#1550728 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423#1550728>, @jfb wrote:
> In D63423#1550725 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423#1550725>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > I've always been frustrated at how clang just gives up as soon as it sees a > > macro. > > At best that should be controlled with some command-line flag. > > > This patch is not the place to change common clang behavior. I'm advocating > for what we usually do: be conservative in macros because token-pasting tends > to look "wrong" but not actually be wrong as much (i.e. false positives). If > you want clang to do something different, an RFC to cfe-dev is the right > place for such a discussion. I don't think i'm proposing to change the entirety of warnings to warn on macros, am i? Likewise, is it a causality/practice to ignore macros, or a documented requirement [that would require RFC for changing]? It's been awhile since i've read through the entirety of docs, but i don't recall seeing one. In D63423#1550732 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423#1550732>, @xbolva00 wrote: > In D63423#1550725 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423#1550725>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > I've always been frustrated at how clang just gives up as soon as it sees a > > macro. > > At best that should be controlled with some command-line flag. > > > I cannot promise nothing, but maybe I could do -Wxor-used-as-pow-in-macro > (off by default) so people could try it and see how noisy it would be :) I'm not sure `-Wflag` + `-Wflag-in-macros` will scale :/ i was thinking more along the lines of warn-for-system-headers flag. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
