This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
arphaman marked an inline comment as done.
Closed by commit rL307368: [ObjC] Avoid the -Wunguarded-availability warnings
for protocol (authored by arphaman).
Changed prior to commit:
erik.pilkington accepted this revision.
erik.pilkington added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM, thanks!
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:132
+ bool ObjCPropertyAccess,
+ bool
arphaman added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:142
if (Result == AR_NotYetIntroduced) {
+if (AvoidAvailabilityChecks)
+ return;
erik.pilkington wrote:
> arphaman wrote:
> > erik.pilkington wrote:
> > > Why are we doing this just
erik.pilkington added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:142
if (Result == AR_NotYetIntroduced) {
+if (AvoidAvailabilityChecks)
+ return;
arphaman wrote:
> erik.pilkington wrote:
> > Why are we doing this just for partials? Doesn't
arphaman added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:142
if (Result == AR_NotYetIntroduced) {
+if (AvoidAvailabilityChecks)
+ return;
erik.pilkington wrote:
> Why are we doing this just for partials? Doesn't this also apply to
>
erik.pilkington added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:142
if (Result == AR_NotYetIntroduced) {
+if (AvoidAvailabilityChecks)
+ return;
Why are we doing this just for partials? Doesn't this also apply to
unavailable/deprecated?
arphaman created this revision.
The unguarded availability warnings in the protocol requirements of a
protocol/class/category declaration can be avoided. This matches the behaviour
of Swift's diagnostics.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35061
Files:
