Daniel =?utf-8?q?Rodríguez?= <[email protected]>, Daniel =?utf-8?q?Rodríguez?= <[email protected]> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/[email protected]>
================ @@ -10631,6 +10631,9 @@ def warn_printf_data_arg_not_used : Warning< "data argument not used by format string">, InGroup<FormatExtraArgs>; def warn_format_invalid_conversion : Warning< "invalid conversion specifier '%0'">, InGroup<FormatInvalidSpecifier>; +def warn_format_conversion_specifier_requires_c23 : Warning< + "conversion specifier '%0' requires a C standard library compatible with " + "C23; data argument may not be used by format">, InGroup<Format>; ---------------- AaronBallman wrote: I think we should add a new diagnostic group for this -- users shouldn't have to disable *all* format warnings just to silence this one. We have an existing diagnostic group that could be reasonable (`-Wformat-invalid-specifier`), but this could also warrant its own group because `%b` is only *sometime* invalid, depending on what versions of C the standard library supports as opposed to a wholly invalid specifier which is never supported. But maybe I'm splitting hairs? That said, I want to rope in some llvm-libc folks for their opinions on the PR in general, so CC @michaelrj-google @frobtech https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126694 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
