carlosgalvezp added a comment. In D116833#3236209 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116833#3236209>, @rsmith wrote:
> Thanks, this looks nice. > > I think we'll need to think carefully before changing the default here. It > seems like the choice here would depend on what token the location of the > diagnostic points to -- if we know that the token is directly responsible for > the warning, then suppressing the warning makes sense, but if some of the > code responsible for the warning is outside the system header (even though > the token at the diagnostic location is not), then we probably still want to > warn. I don't think we provide enough information to the diagnostic system to > decide this on a global basis. In any case, this change should make it really > easy to give the new behavior to more diagnostics. Thanks a lot for the quick review! I agree that we should analyze it carefully if we want to change default behavior. For now this solves my immediate needs so I'll leave it at that :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D116833/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D116833 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
