On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 05/05/2014 22:47, Richard Smith wrote: > >> Seems like a good idea to me. Are there any cases where we should be >> suppressing diagnostics when the function is invalid? (This would be the >> case if adding more statements could cause us to suppress a diagnostic.) I >> can't think of any likely ones -- discarding an invalid GNU label >> declaration might have this effect, but I'm OK with bogus warnings in that >> case. >> > > Right, the early returns have worked out surprisingly well and __label__ > doing fine too. Will keep an eye on it but I think we're OK. >
OK, then LGTM. > Alp. > > > > >> >> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Ping. >> >> >> On 30/04/2014 06:24, Alp Toker wrote: >> >> Add support for partial jump scope checking. This lets us >> diagnose and perform more complete semantic analysis when >> faced with errors in the function body or declaration. >> >> In particular this improves the interactive editing experience >> where jump diagnostics were appearing and disappearing as the >> user typed. >> >> >> This patch will also be necessary to support further work on goto >> code completion BTW. >> >> >> >> Alp. >> >> >> -- http://www.nuanti.com >> the browser experts >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >> >> > -- > http://www.nuanti.com > the browser experts > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
