jordan_rose added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:10184
+ (!getLangOpts().ObjCAutoRefCount && getLangOpts().ObjCWeak &&
+ VDecl->getType().getObjCLifetime() != Qualifiers::OCL_Weak)) &&
!Diags.isIgnored(diag::warn_arc_repeated_use_of_weak,
----------------
bkelley wrote:
> jordan_rose wrote:
> > This condition's getting complicated, and it shows up in a few places.
> > Would it make sense to factor it out?
> What do you think about adding a member function like
> `hasMRCNonTrivialWeakObjCLifetime(const ASTContext &Context)` to QualType to
> factor out lines 10183-10184? We could use that in D31003, D31004, here, and
> D31007.
I'm fine with it myself but I don't work on Clang very much anymore. Maybe
someone else can say whether it's actually a good idea.
(By the way, the conventional abbreviation for this mode is "MRR" for "Manual
Retain/Release", even though it's "ARC" and "Automated Reference Counting".)
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:10340
- } else if (getLangOpts().ObjCAutoRefCount) {
+ } else if (getLangOpts().ObjCAutoRefCount || getLangOpts().ObjCWeak) {
checkUnsafeExprAssigns(Loc, LHSExpr, RHS.get());
----------------
bkelley wrote:
> jordan_rose wrote:
> > Does ObjCAutoRefCount imply ObjCWeak? If so, you could just use the latter.
> I don't believe so. For Snow Leopard, ARC without weak references was
> supported so they can be independent.
Sure, but in that case we don't need the warning, right?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31005
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
