rnk added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17981#374553, @etienneb wrote:
> This is a huge difference. I didn't expect dependencies to bring so much code. > I'm not a fan of having an empty statement and increasing false positives > ratio. > Would it be possible to skip whole declarations with asm-stm, and flag them > as "ignored / not parsable"? I don't actually think there are that many false positives, but I wanted to hear from Alex in case I'm wrong. I was hoping he had better ideas on how to suppress a diagnostic error in clang and run the clang-tidy checks anyway. My best idea is that we make this diagnostic a default-error warning and then build with -Wno-unparseable-assembly or something. That's not a very good solution, though. =\ > We could gate this code under a define. I'm not a fan of define, but it seems > to be a compromise for the size. > > Something like: LIBTOOLING_ENABLE_INLINE_ASM_PARSER > > If we decide to pursue that direction, then it should probably be for every > tools. I'd really rather not do that. http://reviews.llvm.org/D17981 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
