aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24289#592592, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> > So when this modification tells the developer to add 'unsigned' to their > > enum, they are subsequently causing a warning to occur in GCC. > > > > I have commented on the bug on GCC for this > > (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242#c28), but it looks > > unlikely to be fixed. > > > > Should we go ahead and add this warning when following its instructions > > will cause a warning in the GCC compiler? Even though GCC is at fault here, > > I'm not sure what the right thing is to do. > > GCC seems to agree that they should fix it: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414 ; so I wouldn't consider > it a blocker. > > But I'm not using GCC either, and I don't know what is our usual policy, so > it'd be nice to have another opinion here. We don't need to be bug-for-bug compatible with GCC unless there's a compelling reason to do so (which I don't think this is), so I think this is fine to commit, modulo the comments from @thakis regarding the false-positive rate. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24289 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
