https://github.com/xgupta closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74427
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
xgupta wrote:
Sorry, I do have motivation to continue this patch now, hence closing it. Thank
to reviewers for reviewing it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74427
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
zygoloid wrote:
I don't think this type-based approach is the right choice. It will lead to a
lot of false negatives, and I'm especially concerned that this patch is also
dropping warnings for comparisons that just happen to be the same type as
`size_t` (eg, direct use of `unsigned long` or
xgupta wrote:
Ping @cor3ntin, do you have any more comments for this PR?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74427
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Shivam Gupta (xgupta)
Changes
The issue with size_t comes when we are trying to add -Wtype-limits to -Wextra
for GCC compatibility in review https://reviews.llvm.org/D142826.
Example of issue (false positive) -
$ cat
https://github.com/xgupta created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74427
The issue with size_t comes when we are trying to add -Wtype-limits to -Wextra
for GCC compatibility in review https://reviews.llvm.org/D142826.
Example of issue (false positive) -
$ cat
