inclyc added a comment. In D131314#3710331 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131314#3710331>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D131314#3707131 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131314#3707131>, @inclyc wrote: > >> ping > > FWIW, we usually only ping a review that hasn't had any activity in a week or > more (it's not uncommon for reviews to sit for a few days while people think > about them or reviewers are busy on other stuff). > > I've not had the chance to do an in-depth review yet, but I have two thoughts > I can share early on. I think you can simplify the patch a little bit by > treating a string literal and an initializer list the same way (using an > iterator to walk over the elements) instead of ginning up a fake > `StringLiteral` AST node (that's a very heavy handed way to implement this). > However, even with that simplification, I'm not certain the use cases for the > diagnostic happen enough to warrant this large of a change in how we process > format strings. I had encouraged such a diagnostic given the equivalence of > the construct with string literals, but I was imagining that the support > would be a few lines of code rather than anything substantial like this. > Perhaps you can find a way to make the changes less invasive, but if not, I > think we may want to hold off on this change until a user files an issue > pointing out some real world code that would be easier to fix if they had > such a diagnostic. Clang seems to depend class `FormatStringLiteral` when performing format string checking, which has its `SourceLocation`, a wrapped pointer. With these information we can generate FixIt Hints directly on source codes. In previous version, we probably haven't even considered checking the format string evaluated from `InitListExpr` (just consider it is not a string literal). I've tried adding some ways to treat them as equals before, but it seems more invasive than this patch. Actually, I don't think any user would ever define a format string like `{'%', 'd', 0}` (That's exactly the reason I split format string checks in two patches). So maybe we should abandon this patch because there are no enough benefits to apply this? > but it seems more invasive than this patch. It may be necessary to separate out the existing parts that check for formatting strings and related location information, because `InitListExpr` may not have proper information of source code location that can be determined during the format string checking. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131314/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131314 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
