erichkeane added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/attr-alwaysinline.cpp:48
+ if constexpr (D>0) {
+ // expected-warning@+6{{statement attribute 'always_inline' has higher
precedence than function attribute 'noinline'}}
+ // expected-note@#NO_DEP{{conflicting attribute is here}}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Why is this not included in the `3` for: `// expected-warning@+4
> 3{{statement attribute 'always_inline' has higher precedence than function
> attribute 'noinline'}}`
>
> It's pretty unfortunate just how often this diagnostic triggers for the same
> line of code. This seems rather chatty, can you help me understand what's
> going on?
I split them because they are diagnosing different 'things'. See the
associated 'note' on it.
THIS warning is the one that happens while forming the primary template (the
non-dependent call to `non_dependent`), and is later suppressed in the
individual instantiations (which is the logic with the 'old' statement in
`SemaStmtAttr.cpp`).
The set on line 50 is for `baz`, which we emit 3x, because we're instantiating
this function 3x. Suppressing these isn't particularly possible without
putting some sort of state in the AST of 'have we diagnosed this' as far as I
can tell.
The variadic case below defeats our suppression entirely, which is why it
diagnoses so often. The non-dependent case can no longer be suppressed,
because we don't have a good hold of which pre-instantiation call-exprs are
associated with the post-instantiated call-exprs.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146323/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146323
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
