On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:08 PM, David Majnemer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:04 PM, David Majnemer > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:16 AM, David Majnemer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Right now, the code base is correct in saying that many types, like >>> void, are non-POD when passed in to va_arg. >>> >>> While it is true that "struct X" is not a POD type, we do not say why >>> it is not a POD type. >>> I think that it would be more clear to say that the type is >>> incomplete, this had a side effect of making a bit more sense in C99 >>> mode where non-POD is not really part of the lingo. >>> >>> The attached patch should make it a little more clear. It also moves a >>> preexisting test to a more appropriate location. >>> >>> -- >>> David Majnemer >>> >> >> After talking some folks in #llvm and thinking about it a bit, I have >> decided to implement the following: >> >> The type must be complete per RequireCompleteType, otherwise issue an >> error diagnostic >> The type must be non-abstract per RequireNonAbstractType, otherwise >> issue an error diagnostic >> The type must be a POD per isPODType, otherwise issue a warning >> diagnostic (-Wnon-pod-varargs) >> >> I have attached the new patch >> >> -- >> David Majnemer >> > > A small update to the patch: don't return ExprError when the Diag is > just a warning and keep the formatting within 80 columns. > > I had someone look it over in #llvm, awaiting the OK over here.
Looks fine. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
