On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Nifty! But do you think this is cheap enough for a general compiler > >> > warning? It certainly doesn't depend on the analyzer's path-sensitive > >> > analysis, so it's mostly just how much we care about the cost of > >> > isDerivedFrom. > >> > >> This should be relatively inexpensive, so it may make sense as a > >> general compiler warning if others feel that's a better approach. > > > > > > Yes, I think this is a good candidate for an (on-by-default) compiler > > warning. > > Then I'll rework this, thanks! While it's probably more use as its own warning, I wonder if the CFG should be taught about this anyway (maybe not) & then it should appear as an unreachable-code warning.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
