erik.pilkington added a comment. In D82611#2125868 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82611#2125868>, @MadCoder wrote:
> So the risk with that one is that if someone had say the `-didSomething` > direct selector and that some UIKit/Apple SDK API now adds this as a thing > that you use with CFNotification center for example, where you _need_ > dynamism, then the uses of the API would warn all the time when the internal > to the client project `-didSomething` is in scope. > > So we ideally need a way to silence this warning, so at the very least this > needs to be a new `-W` flag (on by default (?)) so that callers that have an > issue can use a `_Pragma` at the call site to ignore the error for when it's > legal. The `DiagGroup<"potentially-direct-selector">` creates a command line flag, so the pragma thing works. I couldn't think of a decent way of suppressing this without pragmas, but ISTM that this will have a low enough false-positive rate that it won't be a big problem. > I would suggest something like `-Wstrict-direct-dispatch` or something. I kinda prefer `-Wpotentially-direct-selector`, since that seems to more closely correspond to what the compiler is complaining about. WDYT? ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaObjC/potentially-direct-selector.m:84 + (void)@selector(inBaseCat); + (void)@selector(inBaseCatImpl); + (void)@selector(inDerived); ---------------- MadCoder wrote: > I think this might be too weak, if we add a warning then maybe what we want > is a tri-state: > > `-Wstrict-direct-dispatch=none|self|all` > > because I can see cases where the heuristic here would be too weak Sure - new patch adds an off-by-default "strict" variant, since I think that's a bit more common in clang then the `-Wx=y` approach. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82611/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82611 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
