lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1101533, @ksu.shadura wrote:
> Thanks for your opinion, your guess was right! It is a unit-test, so seems we
> need to try to suppress warnings on our side.
Ok, great that this time it got resolved this trivially!
> In https://rev
ksu.shadura added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1098823, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1097797, @ksu.shadura wrote:
>
> > Thank you for the test example! I got your point, but I wanted to ask if it
> > should be like this for commutative operations?
> >
Quuxplusone added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1097797, @ksu.shadura wrote:
> Thank you for the test example! I got your point, but I wanted to ask if it
> should be like this for commutative operations?
> In our case it is actually matrix, and subtraction of matrices is not
>
lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1097797, @ksu.shadura wrote:
> Thank you for the test example! I got your point, but I wanted to ask if it
> should be like this for commutative operations?
> In our case it is actually matrix, and subtraction of matrices is not
ksu.shadura added a comment.
Thank you for the test example! I got your point, but I wanted to ask if it
should be like this for commutative operations?
In our case it is actually matrix, and subtraction of matrices is not
commutative operation..
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org
lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1097736, @ksu.shadura wrote:
> Hi,
Hi.
> we see the false-positive behavior of -Wno-self-assign-overloaded flag in
> case of subtraction assignment operator.
> The minimal reproducer that we got: https://godbolt.org/g/8PQMpR
>
ksu.shadura added a comment.
Hi,
we see the false-positive behavior of -Wno-self-assign-overloaded flag in case
of subtraction assignment operator.
The minimal reproducer that we got: https://godbolt.org/g/8PQMpR
typedef int Int_t;
typedef double Double_t;
class TObject {};
template c
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Richard Smith
wrote:
> On 23 April 2018 at 20:07, John McCall via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> The issue there is that -Wnoisy-in-tests is likely to be useful as a
>> cancellation of -Wno-noisy-in-tests, which (as David suggests) migh
On 23 April 2018 at 20:07, John McCall via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 8:23 PM, Richard Smith
> wrote:
>
>> On 23 April 2018 at 16:23, David Blaikie via cfe-commits <
>> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:12 PM John M
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 8:23 PM, Richard Smith
wrote:
> On 23 April 2018 at 16:23, David Blaikie via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:12 PM John McCall wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:32 PM, David Blaikie
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Apr 2
On 23 April 2018 at 16:23, David Blaikie via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:12 PM John McCall wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:32 PM, David Blaikie
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM John McCall via Phabricator <
>>> revi...@review
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:12 PM John McCall wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:32 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM John McCall via Phabricator <
>> revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> rjmccall added a comment.
>>>
>>> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1076176, @
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:32 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM John McCall via Phabricator <
> revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> rjmccall added a comment.
>>
>> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1076176, @dblaikie wrote:
>>
>> > Is there anything else in the "-w" nam
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM John McCall via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> rjmccall added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1076176, @dblaikie wrote:
>
> > Is there anything else in the "-w" namespace other than the literal "-w"
> so
> > far?
>
>
> No. This w
rjmccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1076176, @dblaikie wrote:
> Is there anything else in the "-w" namespace other than the literal "-w" so
> far?
No. This would be novel.
> I mean, I could imagine it might make more sense to default these warnings
> off & users can
Is there anything else in the "-w" namespace other than the literal "-w" so
far?
I mean, I could imagine it might make more sense to default these warnings
off & users can turn them on for non-test code, potentially? So
"-Wnon-test" might make sense.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:22 PM John McCall vi
dblaikie added a comment.
Is there anything else in the "-w" namespace other than the literal "-w" so
far?
I mean, I could imagine it might make more sense to default these warnings
off & users can turn them on for non-test code, potentially? So
"-Wnon-test" might make sense.
Repository:
rL L
rjmccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1076090, @dblaikie wrote:
> FWIW I don't fundamentalyl object to also having something like -wtest.
> Probably needs a better name though (unfortunately the double-negative gets
> confusing... - like you want to describe the set of di
dblaikie added a subscriber: lebedev.ri.
dblaikie added a comment.
FWIW I don't fundamentalyl object to also having something like -wtest.
Probably needs a better name though (unfortunately the double-negative gets
confusing... - like you want to describe the set of diagnostics that should
not be
FWIW I don't fundamentalyl object to also having something like -wtest.
Probably needs a better name though (unfortunately the double-negative gets
confusing... - like you want to describe the set of diagnostics that should
not be used in test code, so that as a group might be "-Wnon-test" but then
lebedev.ri added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:11527-11528
- S.Diag(OpLoc, diag::warn_self_assignment)
- << LHSDeclRef->getType()
- << LHSExpr->getSourceRange() << RHSExpr->getSourceRange();
+ S.Diag(OpLoc, IsBuiltin ? diag::warn_self_assignment
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL330651: [Sema] Add -Wno-self-assign-overloaded (authored by
lebedevri, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766?vs=143645&id=1436
lebedev.ri updated this revision to Diff 143645.
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Add negative tests, too.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766
Files:
docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td
include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
lib/Sema/SemaExpr
dblaikie accepted this revision.
dblaikie added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:11527-11528
- S.Diag(OpLoc, diag::warn_self_assignment)
- << LHSDeclRef->getType()
- << LHSExpr->getSourceRange() << RH
lebedev.ri added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:11527-11528
- S.Diag(OpLoc, diag::warn_self_assignment)
- << LHSDeclRef->getType()
- << LHSExpr->getSourceRange() << RHSExpr->getSourceRange();
+ S.Diag(OpLoc, IsBuiltin ? diag::warn_self_assignment
dblaikie added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:11527-11528
- S.Diag(OpLoc, diag::warn_self_assignment)
- << LHSDeclRef->getType()
- << LHSExpr->getSourceRange() << RHSExpr->getSourceRange();
+ S.Diag(OpLoc, IsBuiltin ? diag::warn_self_assignment_b
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Ping. At least one of these needs to land.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
lebedev.ri created this revision.
lebedev.ri added reviewers: dblaikie, aaron.ballman, thakis, rjmccall, rsmith.
It seems there isn't much enthusiasm for `-wtest`
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45685.
This is more conservative version, which i had in the very first
revision of https://reviews.llvm.or
28 matches
Mail list logo
