AaronBallman wrote: > Thanks Aaron, that's a good example. > > This is a pickle; it doesn't seem like there's an obviously Right > Solution(tm) here.
That's the same conclusion I'm coming to. These situations are kind of mutually exclusive. > I think we're agreeing on the first part, that unhandled deprecated enums > should trigger the "not covered" warning. Yup! > Some users will prefer to handle that with a `default:` to avoid using the > deprecated enum, while others will want to handle the enum explicitly and > suppress the warning. > > Corentin's flag suggestion seems like the best way to satisfy both camps. > I've updated the PR. I agree, thank you for heading that direction (and good suggestion @cor3ntin)! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138562 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
