Thanks! On May 2, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Apr 29, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Richard T wrote: > > > Moved the logic for checking undefined behavior and its warnings into > > CheckCompatibleReinterpretCast(). Also, cleaned up the test case a little. > > Thanks! Submitted in r130703 with a tweak; I changed > > + if (Diags.getDiagnosticLevel(DiagID, SourceLocation()) == > + Diagnostic::Ignored) { > > to > > + if (Diags.getDiagnosticLevel(DiagID, Range.getBegin()) == > + Diagnostic::Ignored) { > > FYI, it's important to call Diags.getDiagnosticLevel with the location where > you intend to emit the warning; in the presence of diagnostic pragmas it is > possible that a small section in the source has the warning enabled while it > is normally disabled. > > Chandler, if you can evaluate the new warning that'd be great. > > Only two warnings in LLVM+Clang. Fixed one in r130707 as it looked clearly > wrong (although perhaps benign). > > The other is in lib/Object, I'll chat about that on IRC to see if that code > should be changed as well. >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
