arphaman 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 ---------------- erik.pilkington wrote: > 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? Right, it's to handle the `-Wunguarded-availability -Wno-unguarded-availability-new` case. Your argument makes sense though, we could allow `-Wunguarded-availability -Wno-unguarded-availability-new` where we warn on old APIs. Although that still seems kinda weird to me. Maybe @dexonsmith has an opinion about this? 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
