aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D59103#1422775 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59103#1422775>, @kallehuttunen
wrote:
> Another idea that came to my mind would be to enable this check only for
> annotated types. So warning for missing field access would be only given for
> types that have for example `[[clang::annotate("value type")]]` annotation.
> Possibly other kinds of checks could be also developed for types that have
> the given annotation.
I don't think `annotate` would be a good choice because the primary purpose of
that one is to pass that attribute information down to the backend and using it
for this purpose feels a bit hackish. However, we could always add a new
attribute if needed, but I'm not convinced an attribute is the right approach
either (but then again, I'm also lacking information I'm sure).
What other kinds of checks do you have in mind and what are the semantics of
the attribute you're thinking of?
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59103/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59103
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
