aaron.ballman added a comment. In D58091#1396397 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58091#1396397>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> In D58091#1396382 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58091#1396382>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > - 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? That's kind of what I was wondering, but I deal with builtins so infrequently that my expectations may be wrong here. If a user declares a builtin with a conflicting type outside of a header file, that seems like we'd want to warn the user about right? But this seems to remove that warning, at least in the case of test/Sema/implicit-builtin-decl.c:71. Or do I misunderstand the situation causing the warning to trigger? 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
