On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: >> several threads on this list discussed that fixits on errors and warnings >> have to be very likely correct. "did you mean" fixits on the other hand >> should go on a separate note instead. The attached patch adds this to the >> internals manual. > > > Looks reasonable (I think you can take my opinion as approval in this case - > but I guess you sent it out for review looking for other feedback too, > perhaps). If it interests you, it's probably also worth highlighting the > "recover as written" requirement which isn't entirely clear/explicit in > those docs (and the implication that has on fixits on warnings: that they > cannot change semantics - they have to be the "suppression" fix at most > (which means there are very few cases where fixits on warnings are valid > (since if you're confident the warning is good then the chances are that the > suppression is not the right fix)))
+1. I think that the statement in the patch that "[...] warnings should only have fix-its that very likely match the user's intent" is likely to mislead people if we don't also document the "recover as written" requirement. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
