On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > Updated with tests. Do people agree with the general style warning?
Sounds good to me > On Jan 7, 2013, at 18:59 , Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, everyone. One thing that's bothered me about our diagnostic TableGen > files is the anonymous use of warning groups: > > def warn_foo : Warning<"foo is bad">, InGroup<DiagGroup<"foo">>; > def warn_foo_cxx : Warning<"foo is even worse in C++">, > InGroup<DiagGroup<"foo">>; > > If we ever want to put the warning groups in a hierarchy, or change the > name, there's a big chance we'll miss one. > > So, I wrote a new warning for clang-tblgen, which even has a fixit if the > group already has a name: > > warning: group 'foo' is referred to anonymously > def warn_foo : Warning<"foo is bad">, InGroup<DiagGroup<"foo">>; > ~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > InGroup<Foo> > > And then fixed all the warnings, with the intent that we make this a new > style requirement going forwards: groups that cover more than one diagnostic > must be named. > > This depends on the changes being discussed in > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130107/161252.html, > but what do people think of this? > > Thanks, > Jordan > > <0001-Warn-if-an-anonymous-DiagGroup-is-referenced-multipl.patch> > <0002-Diagnostics-name-all-implicit-groups-used-more-than-.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
