dblaikie added a comment. In D150226#4650244 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150226#4650244>, @carlosgalvezp wrote:
> @shafik @aaron.ballman @dblaikie > > Hello! Just wanted to check if there's any blockers for merging this patch? > We are now on Clang 18, i.e. 2 releases after the warning was introduced, so > IMO I believe it's a good time to turn it into a hard error and test it in > the wild. > > I read concerns about breaking code. Technically, UB is only invoked in C++17 > and onwards (before, it's only unspecified behavior) - could a solution to > mitigate risk/break less code be to only enable this hard error in C++17? > This way, only people who use a relatively new C++ Standard and compiler > would get the error. > > I also wonder what is the way forward with respect to code reviews, since > Phabricator is deprecated. @shafik do you intend to continue here, or will > you move this into a Github PR? > > Happy to help if there's anything I can do! Thanks for the great work :) I still think even if we can subset this, for whatever we're going to turn into a hard error, it should be a warning-as-error in system headers first for at least a release. (so perhaps the transition should look like: null (no diagnostic) -> warning -> warning-default-to-error -> warning-default-to-error-even-in-system-headers -> hard error) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150226/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150226 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
