On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:03 AM, jahanian wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote: >> >> There's no point in modeling GCC 4.2's behavior, because it isn't relevant >> for Objective-C. Wdirect-ivar-access is intended to warn about direct access >> to ivars in places where one should probably have accessed a property >> instead. That has nothing to do with GC or ARC, so the warning should not >> dependent on the (absence of) those features. >> > > These points are all covered. We don't care about GC. MRR is covered with > this patch. ARC already has tight control on how direct assignment/reference > to > ivars are warned against. We can open up this option for ARC if there are > unsafe cases which is not already covered outside this option. But then, > ARC's warnings > are always on by default, this option is not.
Doug, Do you think it is worthwhile the effort to include this warning under ARC, turn the warning on by default and then run clang tests through it. This gives us some ideas as to usefulness of this option under ARC. If the new warnings are covered by ARC's own warnings, then we can turn it back off for ARC. - fariborz > > - fariborz > >> - Doug > > _______________________________________________ > 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
