On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <griboz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: lib/Basic/LangOptions.cpp:17-21
> @@ -16,3 +16,7 @@
>
> -const SanitizerOptions SanitizerOptions::Disabled = {};
> +const SanitizerOptions SanitizerOptions::Disabled = {
> +#define SANITIZER(NAME, ID) 0,
> +#include "clang/Basic/Sanitizers.def"
> +};
> +
>
> ----------------
> David Blaikie wrote:
>> Not sure of the motivation for this change - shouldn't the {} in the
>> original code produce the same effect (zero initializing all the elements)?
> I have mixed feelings about this. -Wmissing-field-initializers is a
> different thing: all members are initialized by {}, but gcc complains that
> initializers are not explicitly spelled in the source.
Yeah, I'm going to go with "bad warning".
>
> ================
> Comment at: lib/AST/Decl.cpp:668
> @@ -667,2 +667,3 @@
> }
> + (void)D;
> assert(!D || D->CachedLinkage == CachedLinkage);
> ----------------
> This one LGTM.
Agreed - feel free to commit this part.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
