aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/Preprocessor/warn-loop-macro-1.h:3 +#define LOOP_MACRO_1 +// expected-warning@+1 {{#include cycle}} +#include "warn-loop-macro-1.h" ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > For example, as a user, I would look at this diagnostic and assume the > > compiler is wrong -- "There's no cycle there, the header guard macro > > protects me against it being a cycle." is not an unreasonable way to view > > this code. > I believe our 'include breadcrumbs notes' are printed differently: > > [ekeane1@scsel-clx-24 build]$ ./bin/clang -cc1 c.cpp > In file included from c.cpp:1: > In file included from ./b.h:1: > ./a.h:1:2: error: "FOO" > #error "FOO" > ^ > 1 error generated. > Oh wow, I forgot about the fact that we don't use actual notes there! But even still, won't the breadcrumbs in this case be: ``` In file included from warn-loop-main.c:3 warn-loop-macro-1.h:4: warning: #include cycle #include "warn-loop-macro-1.h" ^ ``` That's not really clear (at least to me) due to the header guard protecting against a recursive include. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134654/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134654 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits