This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL327558: [Parser] (C++) Make -Wextra-semi slightly more
useful (authored by lebedevri, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43162?vs
lebedev.ri added inline comments.
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/extra-semi.cpp:14
+void F(){}
+; // expected-warning {{extra ';' outside of a function is}}
+
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Can you use the full diagnostic text for this first appearance in the test?
Will requir
aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM aside from a testing nit.
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/extra-semi.cpp:14
+void F(){}
+; // expected-warning {{extra ';' outside of a function is}}
+
--
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Let's move weekly ping away from friday :)
Ping.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43162
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Ping
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43162
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jordan_rose added a comment.
It's been a long time since that commit, but I think the difference is that
`-pedantic` / `Extension`-type diagnostics are magic and
`-Wc++98-compat-pedantic` is not. I like Richard's way better and if it could
be applied to -Wnewline-eof later as well then that sou
lebedev.ri added a comment.
**If** i'm reading `git blame` correctly, the `-Wnewline-eof` diag, which i
used as a base to model the previous version of this diff on,
was added in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL189110 /
https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/commit/7865b8e4324378e06f59adb4d60bec26a7d3d
lebedev.ri updated this revision to Diff 136503.
lebedev.ri edited the summary of this revision.
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Reworked stuff via new `CXX98CompatExtraSemi` diag group.
As expected, passing `-Wno-c++98-compat-pedantic` disables the extra-semi diag,
which exactly the opposite from w
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Thank you for the feedback!
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43162#1022427, @rsmith wrote:
> This is the wrong way to deal with this. The only thing that should ever be
> controlled by -W flags is whether the warnings in that group appear, not
> whether warnings in othe
rsmith added a comment.
This is the wrong way to deal with this. The only thing that should ever be
controlled by -W flags is whether the warnings in that group appear, not
whether warnings in other groups appear. The principle is that -W flags should
behave "as if" they filter the diagnostic o
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Ping.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43162
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
aaron.ballman added a comment.
To be clear -- my concerns were mostly that it seems messy for this sort of
thing to require three different diagnostic entries and somewhat convoluted
logic to select them -- if we can find a way to generalize this, that'd be
better.
Repository:
rC Clang
htt
lebedev.ri added a comment.
After a brief disscussion with @aaron.ballman in IRC,
the question still stands whether this is really the correct approach,
or is there some nicer (TableGen-based?) approach.
Mainly waiting for @rsmith's opinion.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D431
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Ping.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43162
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
lebedev.ri created this revision.
lebedev.ri added reviewers: rsmith, rtrieu, aaron.ballman.
lebedev.ri added a project: clang.
Let's suppose the `-Weverything` is passed.
Given code like
void F() {}
;
If the code is compiled with `-std=c++03`, it would diagnose that extra sema:
:2:1: wa
15 matches
Mail list logo
