aaron.ballman added a comment. In D124726#3516346 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124726#3516346>, @nathanchance wrote:
> I see an instance of this warning in the Linux kernel due to the "Now, for > unknown directives inside a skipped conditional block, we diagnose the > unknown directive as a warning if it is sufficiently similar to a directive > specific to preprocessor conditional blocks" part of this change: > > arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:532:8: warning: invalid preprocessing > directive, did you mean '#if'? [-Wunknown-directives] > # in in order to perform > ^ > arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:547:8: warning: invalid preprocessing > directive, did you mean '#if'? [-Wunknown-directives] > # in in order to perform > ^ > 2 warnings generated. Oh wow, that's a really neat one! > This is a comment within an assembler file that will be preprocessed (this is > a 32-bit x86 build and the block is guarded by `#ifdef __x86_64__` on line > 500): > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S?h=v5.18-rc7#n532 > > Is there anything that can be done to improve this heuristic for this case? I > can try to push a patch to change the comment style for this one instance but > I always worry that a warning of this nature will appear in the future and > result in the kernel disabling this warning entirely. Ah, and we don't get an error for those because of special logic: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Lex/PPDirectives.cpp#L1243 and it looks like we may need similar logic before issuing the warnings as well. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D124726/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D124726 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
