lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39462#917421, @rjmccall wrote:
> So, that change makes this very interesting, because I think the right way of > looking at it is as the first in a larger family of warnings that attempt to > treat typedefs as if they were a much stronger type-system feature, i.e. that > warn about all sorts of conversions between different typedef types. That > should be good enough to serve as a basic rule for a stronger portability > warning, as well as generally pointing out all sorts of potential logical > errors like passing a bit_offset_t off as a byte_offset_t. > > Such a warning really needs more exceptions than a simple exact-type-spelling > rule would give you. There are several language features that add type sugar > which should really be ignored for the purposes of the warning, such as > typeof and decltype; and conversely, there are several features that remove > (or just never add) type sugar that also shouldn't cause problems, like > literals or C++ templates. > > I think that feature could be really useful as a major new diagnostic That is all very cool and shiny, but could we please go back to the real world, please? :) In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39462#917421, @rjmccall wrote: > but I do want to warn you that it's probably a pretty large project, somewhat > on the scale of implementing -Wconversion in the first place. Exactly. My expirience shows that unless i'm actually interested, i will either fail, or it will work poorly. And i can tell you that i'm not quite interested in implementing what you seem to suggest to implement. What i would like to do, is to finish *this* differential, that would make https://reviews.llvm.org/D38101 less noisy for some questionable edge-cases, without In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39462#917421, @rjmccall wrote: > a pretty large project, somewhat on the scale of implementing -Wconversion in > the first place. Can that happen? :) In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39462#917421, @rjmccall wrote: > Also, yeah, my first thought is that it's probably outside of a reasonable > rubric for even -Wextra, especially while it's being actively developed. For that other diagnostic you suggest - sure. --- I think the general direction is correct, but there are unhandled cases yet, e.g , so I'm somewhat lost here, and would love to hear some actual feedback for the suggested code. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D39462 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
