[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

haoNoQ wrote: Yes I like this perspective: "Schrödinger's need-for-pre-commit-approval" isn't a great way to communicate  I'll be more clear in the future. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

dwblaikie wrote: Commit without precommit review is fine, especially from a code owner - if you only wanted the PR for automated precommit checking, you can add the `skip-precommit-approval` to indicate that the PR isn't intended for precommit review. But, yeah, otherwise it's good that if

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

erichkeane wrote: > Ok gotcha thanks! In any case, I'll do my best to handle this more gracefully > in the future. Your advice is always appreciated! Perfect! I'll try to be better about this in the future as well. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

haoNoQ wrote: Ok gotcha thanks! In any case, I'll do my best to handle this more gracefully in the future. Your advice is always appreciated! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

erichkeane wrote: > Hmm, no, I landed it because I made an assumption that there's simply not > that much interest in this work (I'm quite depressed about this in general > lately) so as a code owner I just made a call that it's probably good enough > to go and rely on post-commit review. Now

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

haoNoQ wrote: Hmm, no, I landed it because I made an assumption that there's simply not that much interest in this work (I'm quite depressed about this in general lately) so as a code owner I just made a call that it's probably good enough to go and rely on post-commit review. Now that you

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

erichkeane wrote: > did I miss something - it looks like this was committed without approval? It looks that way to me @haoNoQ : Did you commit this instead of something else? Can you revert this until we get approval? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

dwblaikie wrote: did I miss something - it looks like this was committed without approval? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

https://github.com/haoNoQ closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

haoNoQ wrote: Ok I'll try to land! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

@@ -147,6 +147,20 @@ bool BugSuppression::isSuppressed(const PathDiagnosticLocation , // done as well as perform a lot of work we'll never need. // Gladly, none of our on-by-default checkers currently need it. DeclWithIssue = ACtx.getTranslationUnitDecl(); + }

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

@@ -147,6 +147,20 @@ bool BugSuppression::isSuppressed(const PathDiagnosticLocation , // done as well as perform a lot of work we'll never need. // Gladly, none of our on-by-default checkers currently need it. DeclWithIssue = ACtx.getTranslationUnitDecl(); + }

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

https://github.com/haoNoQ updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 >From b702fcca1b4c5924ce4740d054e396aa4bc67e97 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Artem Dergachev Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:05:39 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

github-actions[bot] wrote: :warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code. :warning: You can test this locally with the following command: ``bash git-clang-format --diff 4d89356fef1a568de790ad8b3f53dc494b461e5b b702fcca1b4c5924ce4740d054e396aa4bc67e97 --

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Artem Dergachev (haoNoQ) Changes The attribute is now allowed on an assortment of declarations, to suppress warnings related to declarations themselves, or all warnings in the lexical scope of the declaration. I don't necessarily see a

[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)

https://github.com/haoNoQ created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 The attribute is now allowed on an assortment of declarations, to suppress warnings related to declarations themselves, or all warnings in the lexical scope of the declaration. I don't necessarily see a reason