aheejin wrote: > > Yeah I get that we haven't been warning about a similar case > > (--trap-unreachable) before. But I think they are more of what ended up > > happen, and not the firm intention not to warn for conflicted requests. > > For example, that --trap-unreachable command line option was added much > > later > > ([6d9f8c9](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6d9f8c98172cd4d648e33b21679325227c5cec83)) > > than when we set it to false > > ([ffa143c](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/ffa143ce814101fb1277ba65b20bdf86775d0b32)). > > When first we set it to false in 2015, that option didn't exist so we had > > nothing to warn against. And someone who added that option in 2018 didn't > > go through all the code to check if there were any conflicting assignments. > > You might be right, but my feeling is that the behaviour of > `--trap-unreachable` and `--no-trap-after-noreturn` should be consistent > across all backends, and probably with other options too. I think that's a > big enough change to warrant discussion and testing separately. > > This change is consistent with the current behaviour and fixes a real issue, > so I think it makes sense for this change to go in first, before we start to > think about changing any existing behaviour.
OK fair enough. Sorry that this PR is taking so long time. I guess we can land this after we fix some tests / add some comments. I still think the test file needs more comments; I would like that the readers of the test file find it easy enough to figure out what the purpose of the tests in that file is, without referring to `git blame`s and PR discussions. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65876 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
