On 06/05/2014 01:14, Richard Smith wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
r208394
Cheers
Alp.
Alp.
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
