jfb requested changes to this revision. jfb added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: dexonsmith.
In D64666#1597193 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64666#1597193>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > In D64666#1596660 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64666#1596660>, @xbolva00 wrote: > > > I think we should warn in that case even if GCC does not warn. > > > Strong +1. Sorry if the phrasing was misleading: if we know for a fact that there's a problem, we should warn unconditionally. If we don't know for a fact then the warning should *not* be enabled by `-Wall` nor `-Wextra`. I don't really care what GCC does by default, LLVM doesn't have to match every single thing. That being said, if LLVM behaves differently then maybe the flag name should be different. > In D64666#1596853 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64666#1596853>, @ziangwan wrote: > >> Final review ping. > > > Please be sure to give reviewers enough time to respond to comments before > pinging a review. Indeed. You haven't answered my first comment, I'd expect you to do so and not "final ping" anything. I'm not saying you must do what I say, just that you must answer comments, not ignore them. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64666/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64666 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
