LGTM except that this check should not be done for MinGW (and on a related note, I wish MSVC would behave the same since I can't see the benefit of this diagnostic).
================ Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:2455 @@ -2452,2 +2454,3 @@ def note_previous_attribute : Note<"previous attribute is here">; +def note_class_attribute : Note<"class attribute is here">; def note_attribute : Note<"attribute is here">; ---------------- Do we need a new note here? Wouldn't "previous attribute is here" suffice? http://reviews.llvm.org/D3973 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
