Well, I started implementation of warnings regarding availability and faced
with an issue:
I decided to check how clang behaves and what kind of diagnostics it shows in
that situation,
but I've found that clang just compiles the code without any warnings.
I've run this command:
clang main.m -fsyntax-only -fmodules -Weverything
with this code:
//main.m
@import Foundation;
@interface Future : NSObject
+ (instancetype)newFuture
__attribute__((availability(macosx,introduced=10.10)));
@end
@implementation Future
+ (instancetype)newFuture { return nil; }
@end
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
Future *f = [Future newFuture];
return f == nil;
}
And everything was just fine (excerpt of unused variables argc/argv).
So the question is: what is expected behaviour regarding boxed expressions and
availability?
I can’t even find such tests for NSNumber/NSString.
I would appreciate any suggestions or advice.
Best regards, Alex.
--
AlexDenisov
Software Engineer, https://github.com/AlexDenisov
On 11 Dec 2014 at 22:12:06, AlexDenisov ([email protected]) wrote:
> there is a good chance we won’t be adding boxing of pointers.
Do you mean pointers to void (valueWithPointer) or all the pointers, like
NSObject * (valueWithNonretainedObject)?
Anyway, should I get rid of that functionality before submitting updated patch
or keep it and, probably, drop later?
--
AlexDenisov
Software Engineer, https://github.com/AlexDenisov
On 10 Dec 2014 at 23:00:38, jahanian ([email protected]) wrote:
On Dec 9, 2014, at 12:21 AM, AlexDenisov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Also, why can’t place this under the umbrella objc_boxed_expressions?
Version 3.5, for example, supports objc_boxed_expression but not
NSValue+boxed_expressions,
which might cause weird compilation fails. Or did I get it wrong?
No wrong :).
+ // Otherwise, require a declaration of NSValue.
+ S.Diag(Loc, diag::err_undeclared_nsvalue);
+ return nullptr;
+ }
+ } else if (!S.NSValueDecl->hasDefinition()) {
+ S.Diag(Loc, diag::err_undeclared_nsvalue);
>> Maybe we should have a clearer diagnostic here.
Makes sense, I used NSNumber' implementation here. I'd appreciate any
suggestions or advice on
how to improve diagnostic here (and, probably, for NSNumber)
Probably should allude to NSValue (or NSNumber) having no definition (only
forward declared).
But, it is not something I strongly argue for.
P.S. there is a good chance we won’t be adding boxing of pointers.
Thanks, Fairborz
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
