jfb added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47290#1126443, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47290#1125028, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > Okay, that's fair, but the vendor-specific type for my Windows example is > > spelled `DWORD`. I'm really worried that this special case will become a > > precedent and we'll wind up with -Wformat being relaxed for everything > > based on the same rationale. If that's how the community wants -Wformat to > > work, cool, but I'd like to know if we're intending to change (what I see > > as) the design of this warning. > > > I spoke with @jfb offline and am less concerned about this patch now. He's > welcome to correct me if I misrepresent anything, but the precedent this sets > is that a platform "owner" (someone with authority, not Joe Q Random-User) > can relax -Wformat as in this patch, but this is not a precedent for a > blanket change to -Wformat just because the UB happens to work and we "know" > it. Thanks for asking these questions Aaron, it's helped answer everyone's concerns and explain our respective positions. You've certainly summarized what I was thinking. It sounds like you're both OK moving forward with this patch? Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D47290 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
