vsapsai added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49119#1176047, @ahatanak wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49119#1164285, @vsapsai wrote: > > > Also I had a few ideas for tests when the warning isn't required and it is > > absent. But I'm not sure they are actually valuable. If you are interested, > > we can discuss it in more details. > > > Could you elaborate on what kind of tests you have in mind? - declaring `noescape` on implementation when nothing like that was mentioned in interface or protocols; - have class method and instance method with the same name, only one of them is `noescape`, test that we don't show spurious warning in this case; - try selector names that look similar but are different, like `-foo`, `-foo:`, `-foo::` This test suggestion isn't really related to `noescape`, I just got carried away. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D49119 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
