ahatanak added a comment. Thanks, I'll update the patch and commit it today.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49119#1176139, @vsapsai wrote: > 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; Maybe we should consider this, but I don't think this is incorrect functionally. If you pass an object to such methods, clang's IRGen will just emit the unoptimized code that is emitted for calls to functions/methods taking escaping parameters (e.g., no 'nocapture' on parameters, no stack block optimization implemented in r337580). The opposite case (non-escaping interface and escaping implementation) is incorrect and can cause problems, so we need some diagnostics. > - 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; I can add a test case for this. > - 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
