On Dec 16, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Dec 16, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >>> I definitely agree, which is why I added it in the first place :). >>> The problem is that it isn't hooked up with any of the other >>> diagnostics machinery, so it isn't controllable and doesn't give >>> decent location info (for example). >>> >>> I don't know that it really provides a good user experience. In the >>> LTO case with debug info, we could do better. >> >> So what's your idea, detect it somewhere else? Where were you >> thinking? > > For now I think we just just disable the warning.
I'd prefer to wait until the replacement is in place, if you're OK with that. > In the future, this could naturally be handled with Ted's work on > static analysis stuff. The nice thing about doing it at the source > level is that you can detect mismatches that are broken in more subtle > ways as well, such as int foo() vs long foo(). You also get good > diagnostics hooks and location info. > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > llvm-commits mailing list > llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
