beanz marked 3 inline comments as done and an inline comment as not done.
beanz added a comment.
Will push updates in a second.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Lexer/final-macro.c:14
+// expected-warning@+2{{macro 'Foo' has been marked as final and should not be
redefined}}
+// expected-note@+1{{previous definition is here}}
+#define Foo 1
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This previous definition marker looks wrong to me -- it should be pointing to
> line 4, right?
Since the macro is redefined here, when the later warning gets hit the note
pops up here, which makes sense. This itself being a redefinition is amusing,
but I think this is probably the way we want it to work. I don't have strong
opinions though...
================
Comment at: clang/test/Lexer/final-macro.c:18
+// expected-warning@+2{{macro 'Foo' has been marked as final and should not be
redefined}}
+// expected-warning@+1{{'Foo' macro redefined}}
+#define Foo 2
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Should we suppress this diagnostic when we know we're already issuing the
> previous one? I get why they both are issued, but it does seem a bit unclean
> to have two warnings that are basically both "you are redefining this macro
> and maybe you should reconsider that" diagnostics. (I don't feel strongly,
> mostly wondering out loud.)
I can see this going both ways. I tend to err toward listing _all_ the warnings
in case someone wants to try and suppress them for a specific use case.
Otherwise they have to build multiple times in a cycle to suppress everything.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108567/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108567
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
