[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Ignore swig warnings about shadowed overloads (PR #83317)
https://github.com/bulbazord created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83317 This specifically addresses the warnings: $LLVM/lldb/include/lldb/API/SBCommandReturnObject.h:119: Warning 509: Overloaded method lldb::SBCommandReturnObject::PutCString(char const *) effectively ignored, $LLVM/lldb/include/lldb/API/SBCommandReturnObject.h:119: Warning 509: as it is shadowed by lldb::SBCommandReturnObject::PutCString(char const *,int). There is exactly one declaration of SBCommandReturnObject::PutCString. The second parameter (of type `int`) has default value `-1`. Without investigating why SWIG believes there are 2 method declarations, I believe it is safe to ignore this warning. It does not appear to actually impact functionality in any way. rdar://117744660 >From 76a634a1ad00e90983391cdd04588f92b5f15432 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alex Langford Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:58:33 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] [lldb] Ignore swig warnings about shadowed overloads This specifically addresses the warnings: $LLVM/lldb/include/lldb/API/SBCommandReturnObject.h:119: Warning 509: Overloaded method lldb::SBCommandReturnObject::PutCString(char const *) effectively ignored, $LLVM/lldb/include/lldb/API/SBCommandReturnObject.h:119: Warning 509: as it is shadowed by lldb::SBCommandReturnObject::PutCString(char const *,int). There is exactly one declaration of SBCommandReturnObject::PutCString. The second parameter (of type `int`) has default value `-1`. Without investigating why SWIG believes there are 2 method declarations, I believe it is safe to ignore this warning. It does not appear to actually impact functionality in any way. rdar://117744660 --- lldb/bindings/CMakeLists.txt | 6 +- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lldb/bindings/CMakeLists.txt b/lldb/bindings/CMakeLists.txt index b44ed59aa662b2..296eae1ae77f86 100644 --- a/lldb/bindings/CMakeLists.txt +++ b/lldb/bindings/CMakeLists.txt @@ -23,7 +23,11 @@ endif() set(SWIG_COMMON_FLAGS -c++ - -w361,362 # Ignore warnings about ignored operator overloads + # Ignored warnings: + # 361: operator! ignored. + # 362: operator= ignored. + # 509: Overloaded method declaration effectively ignored, shadowed by previous declaration. + -w361,362,509 -features autodoc -I${LLDB_SOURCE_DIR}/include -I${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR} ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Ignore swig warnings about shadowed overloads (PR #83317)
llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb Author: Alex Langford (bulbazord) Changes This specifically addresses the warnings: $LLVM/lldb/include/lldb/API/SBCommandReturnObject.h:119: Warning 509: Overloaded method lldb::SBCommandReturnObject::PutCString(char const *) effectively ignored, $LLVM/lldb/include/lldb/API/SBCommandReturnObject.h:119: Warning 509: as it is shadowed by lldb::SBCommandReturnObject::PutCString(char const *,int). There is exactly one declaration of SBCommandReturnObject::PutCString. The second parameter (of type `int`) has default value `-1`. Without investigating why SWIG believes there are 2 method declarations, I believe it is safe to ignore this warning. It does not appear to actually impact functionality in any way. rdar://117744660 --- Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83317.diff 1 Files Affected: - (modified) lldb/bindings/CMakeLists.txt (+5-1) ``diff diff --git a/lldb/bindings/CMakeLists.txt b/lldb/bindings/CMakeLists.txt index b44ed59aa662b2..296eae1ae77f86 100644 --- a/lldb/bindings/CMakeLists.txt +++ b/lldb/bindings/CMakeLists.txt @@ -23,7 +23,11 @@ endif() set(SWIG_COMMON_FLAGS -c++ - -w361,362 # Ignore warnings about ignored operator overloads + # Ignored warnings: + # 361: operator! ignored. + # 362: operator= ignored. + # 509: Overloaded method declaration effectively ignored, shadowed by previous declaration. + -w361,362,509 -features autodoc -I${LLDB_SOURCE_DIR}/include -I${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR} `` https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83317 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Ignore swig warnings about shadowed overloads (PR #83317)
https://github.com/medismailben approved this pull request. Yeay 🥳 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83317 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Ignore swig warnings about shadowed overloads (PR #83317)
https://github.com/JDevlieghere approved this pull request. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83317 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Ignore swig warnings about shadowed overloads (PR #83317)
https://github.com/bulbazord closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83317 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Ignore swig warnings about shadowed overloads (PR #83317)
DavidSpickett wrote: I admit I was too scared of SWIG to look into these myself, but it always annoyed me that we were only 2 warnings away from a clean build. Thanks for fixing this! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83317 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits