smeenai added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39149#910825, @mclow.lists wrote:
> I dislike this change fairly strongly. Agreed. Would you be happier with just disabling the diagnostics around the problematic parts? In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39149#910845, @lebedev.ri wrote: > 1. Disable that warning in `libc++` cmakelists. Be careful though, i think it > might disable the entire 'tautological comparison' diagnostic family. Note that one of the tautological comparisons is in a header, so it affects all libc++ clients and not just libc++ itself. > 2. Use preprocessor pragmas to disable the diagnostic for the selected code, > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL315882. Brittle, ugly, effective, has the least > impact. <- Best? I was considering doing this instead. It also seems ugly in its own way, but possibly less ugly than this patch. > 5. The essential problem, i *think* is much like the problem with unreachable > code diagnostic, CppCon 2017: Titus Winters “Hands-On With Abseil” > <https://youtu.be/xu7q8dGvuwk?t=16m5s>. The check does not know/care whether > the comparison is tautological only with the current Fundamental type sizes, > or always. Perhaps this is the proper heading? Yeah, exactly. If the warning could only fire when the comparison was *always* going to be tautological, that would avoid any issues like this, but I'm not sure how best to go about that. https://reviews.llvm.org/D39149 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
