jdoerfert added a comment. In D58091#1396382 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58091#1396382>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> If I'm following along properly, it sounds like we want to disable this > warning largely because it can appear in header files attempting to declare > the functions in question. That is the situation that exposed the problem, yes. > - but I wonder why those diagnostics are happening in the first place. It > seems like the warning is still useful when it triggers outside of that > situation, no? The underlying conceptual problem, which I didn't know when I added `GE_Missing_type`, is that this has _nothing_ to do with the location of the declaration. We say, include the header X.h, if we were not able to build a type for recognized built-in Y that should be declared in X.h. However, we should report _why_ we could not build the type instead. For built-ins we do not have a type on record (`GE_Missing_type`), this is always, so no warning for now. For the ones that we only fail to build a type because some requirement is missing, we should report that, at least when we are in the respective header. I don't have a perfect solution of what to do actually. I could check if the declaration is (probably) in the respective header so we can switch between warnings? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58091/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58091 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
