aaron.ballman added a comment. In D88833#2319118 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88833#2319118>, @fiesh wrote:
> @aaron.ballman valid point. It would seem natural to diagnose both since the > user is voluntarily causing the decay? I'm on the fence. If the argument to the function is one that's defined by a system header, you could argue that the user isn't voluntarily causing the decay -- they're using the API they were given by the system. If you're calling a user-defined function with that argument, then you could say that the user could change their function signature to remove the decay. If you're calling a system-defined function with that argument, then there's really nothing the user can do except add a cast that they'll likely view as useless. So at the very least, I think if the function declaration and the argument to the function are in a system header, then we shouldn't warn. I think for a user-declared function, my intuition is that using an argument from a system header which causes decay is pretty uncommon but that we should follow the same behavior for the argument as we do for predefined expressions like `__PRETTY_FUNCTION__`. Because the argument is outside of the user's control, asking them to jump through hoops with their function declaration seems like it wouldn't likely add a lot of value. However, I'm not firmly tied to that. For user-declared functions, I just want to make sure we treat `__PRETTY_FUNCTION__` and `SYS_STRING` consistently. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88833/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88833 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
