aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Preprocessor/warn-loop-macro-1.h:3
+#define LOOP_MACRO_1
+// expected-warning@+1 {{#include cycle}}
+#include "warn-loop-macro-1.h"
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > For example, as a user, I would look at this diagnostic and assume the
> > compiler is wrong -- "There's no cycle there, the header guard macro
> > protects me against it being a cycle." is not an unreasonable way to view
> > this code.
> I believe our 'include breadcrumbs notes' are printed differently:
>
> [ekeane1@scsel-clx-24 build]$ ./bin/clang -cc1 c.cpp
> In file included from c.cpp:1:
> In file included from ./b.h:1:
> ./a.h:1:2: error: "FOO"
> #error "FOO"
> ^
> 1 error generated.
>
Oh wow, I forgot about the fact that we don't use actual notes there! But even
still, won't the breadcrumbs in this case be:
```
In file included from warn-loop-main.c:3
warn-loop-macro-1.h:4: warning: #include cycle
#include "warn-loop-macro-1.h"
^
```
That's not really clear (at least to me) due to the header guard protecting
against a recursive include.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134654/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134654
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
