> 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).
Thanks for pointing this out. I've kept it as an error for now, but maybe we want to downgrade it to a warning since nothing is breaking here, it's just a compatibility issue with MSVC. ================ 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">; ---------------- Nico Rieck wrote: > Do we need a new note here? Wouldn't "previous attribute is here" suffice? You're right, let's just use the old note. http://reviews.llvm.org/D3973 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
