Sorry, yes busy and vacation. Your patch looks good to me. I have a pending proposal which pretty much describes what is implemented (with due credit :). Let’s wait for outcome of this proposal.
- Thanks, Fariborz On Jan 17, 2015, at 1:44 PM, AlexDenisov <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess you’re busy with the next LLVM/Clang release, but just want to know > how is it going with this patch. > Let me know if I can help somehow. > -- > AlexDenisov > Software Engineer, https://github.com/AlexDenisov > > On 10 Jan 2015 at 11:12:39, AlexDenisov ([email protected]) wrote: > >> Here is new version, without pointers. >> >> -- >> AlexDenisov >> Software Engineer, https://github.com/AlexDenisov >> >> On 9 Jan 2015 at 20:14:47, jahanian ([email protected]) wrote: >> >>> >>> We may not support boxing of any pointer types after all >>> (as the underlying API does not manage the collected object). >>> So, final patch may need to address that. Please provide more tests >>> for NSEdgeInsets and specifically, see that diagnostics come out when >>> deployment target does not support it. >>> Otherwise, patch looks good. Please hang on to the patch until we have gone >>> through >>> the language review process. >>> >>> - Thanks, Fairborz >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 6, 2015, at 10:23 AM, AlexDenisov <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you for response. >>>> I already sent another patch, it could be found here: >>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.scm/114023 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AlexDenisov >>>> Software Engineer, https://github.com/AlexDenisov >>>> >>>> On 5 Jan 2015 at 19:39:16, jahanian ([email protected]) wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 24, 2014, at 3:29 AM, AlexDenisov <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do the usual lookup to find the method which implements this syntax. >>>>>>> Call Decl::getAvailability on this method. If it returns >>>>>>> anything other than AvailabilityResult::AR_Available >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I understand this part, it’s pretty obvious. But what I don’t >>>>>> understand is: >>>>>> >>>>>>> issue an appropriate diagnostic. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is appropriate diagnostic for AR_NotYetIntroduced? >>>>>> >>>>>> Should I introduce this diagnostic? Or just show warning/error for >>>>>> Deprecated/Unavailable and ignore NotYetIntroduced AR? >>>>> >>>>> It is sufficient to issue an unavailability diagnostics since diagnostic >>>>> points to the method which has the availability info. as part of its >>>>> declaration. >>>>> >>>>> - Fariborz
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
