Quuxplusone added a comment. In D58896#1737242 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58896#1737242>, @edward-jones wrote:
> In D58896#1737200 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58896#1737200>, @xbolva00 wrote: > > > Well, i am not sure if one twitter report is good motivation to criple > > warning. > > > The motivation for suppressing the warning was that it is not uncommon to use > a character literal in lookup tables. In addition in brings the warning > inline with the behaviour of `-Wchar-subscripts` in GCC. Peanut gallery says: If it's "not uncommon," then {when,if} you resubmit this for review, it should be easy and therefore mandatory to provide at least one example of someone actually using a character literal as a lookup table index. I've never seen such a construct in my life, so real-world examples (e.g. GitHub links) would be useful. Especially useful would be links to GitHub examples of `'i'[arr]` or `arr['i']` where the //most appropriate fix// is legitimately "upgrade your Clang thus suppressing the diagnostic" as opposed to "rewrite the expression as `arr[int('i')]` or `arr[105]` depending on what you actually mean it to do." Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58896/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58896 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
