Hi Richard, I think this checking is quadratic, n(n+1)/2. This might be fairly expensive on a large set of enums. Do you have any performance numbers? I agree that it is a good checking, but the way it is implemented is likely to be noticeably slow on some (important) cases.
Ted On Jul 18, 2012, at 4:46 PM, Richard Trieu <[email protected]> wrote: > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6343 > > Warn on enum elements that are assigned values already in use. This is based > on the misconception that elements not given a value will be given the next > smallest, unused value. Instead, elements are assigned 1 more than the > previous value. Some example code this warning will catch: > > enum { A, B, C, Aref = A, count }; > Both B and count will have value 1. > > enum { A, B, C, D = -1, E, F }; > A = E = 0 > B = F = 1 > > This warning found one such issue in LLVM that was fixed in r160465. > <duplicate-enum.patch>_______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
