erik.pilkington added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp:7031 + Introduced) && + !S.Diags.isIgnored(diag::warn_unguarded_availability_new, Loc); + diag = NewWarning ? diag::warn_partial_availability_new ---------------- Sorry to keep this going so long, but why are we even checking isIgnored? The only difference it could make in whether we emit a diagnostic is if both: -Wunguarded-availability and -Wno-unguarded-availability-new are passed in, which seems like it would never happen, right? Even if somebody did pass that in, it seems reasonable to warn on old stuff but not new stuff. Maybe I'm missing something here? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D34264 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
