adriandole added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:7006 +def warn_typecheck_comparison_of_function_pointers : Warning< + "comparison of function pointers (%0 and %1)">, + InGroup<CompareFunctionPointers>, DefaultIgnore; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > cjdb wrote: > > This diagnostic feels very bare bones, and doesn't explain why the user > > should care. It would be good to rephrase the message so that it can > > incorporate some kind of reason too. > Agreed -- diagnostic wording is usually trying to tell the user what they did > wrong to guide them how to fix it, but this reads more like the diagnostic > explains what the code does. This one will be especially interesting because > people would naturally expect that comparison to work per the standard. And > if enabling ICF breaks that then ICF is non-conforming because it makes valid > code silently invalid. I think this is an ICF bug (it may still be worth > warning users about though because you can use newer Clang with an older lld > and hit the issue even if lld addresses this issue). > > CC @lhames @sbc100 @ruiu in to try to scare up an lld code owner to see if > this is known and if there's something that can be done on the lld side to > not break valid code. There's already an ICF option that doesn't break valid code: `-icf=safe`. Only if you explicitly decide that you don't care about the results of function pointer comparisons would you use `-icf=all`, which enables more code folding to be done than the safe option. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D141310/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D141310 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
