On Jun 25, 2012, at 16:27 , Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Jun 25, 2012, at 14:43 , Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Full build of the 'chrome' target with this warning on my MBP: real >>> 31m41.500s >>> Same clang binary at the same revision, without the warning: real >>> 31m53.572s >>> >>> So the compile-time impact of the warning is below noise I'd say. >>> >>> Nico >> >> Did you remember to add a guard around the "work" part of >> CheckIdentityMemvarAssignment? Or were you still doing the work and just not >> emitting the warning? > > I uncommented the call to "CheckIdentityMemvarAssignment" (and clang > warned me that the static function CheckIdentityMemvarAssignment > wasn't used). With "same binary" I meant "built at the same revision"
Okay, I see. I'm a little concerned along with Ted because copying over pieces of another struct does seem like something common enough to do, but I guess it's fine. This probably won't catch "this->_a = _a", but maybe that's okay. It is a typo you might make in a setter, though. BTW, this would be a good warning to have in Objective-C as well (ObjCIvarRefExpr). The equivalent example there would be "self->_a = _a". Thanks for working on this. I think over all it is a good warning to have. Jordan
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
