snarang181 wrote: > > > I feel like this is a solution that can grow out of hand very easily. IMO > > > the better solution would be to have `-Wmissing-noreturn` place a > > > `[[noreturn]]` into the AST to avoid incorrect follow-up diagnostics. > > > > > > I agree, in principle I would expect Clang to be able to prove (in simple > > cases) that a function cannot return, and then treat it as-if they were > > marked as `[[noreturn]]` in the source code, not just for purposes of > > diagnostics but also optimization. Suppressing the `-Wreturn-type` warning > > does not achieve that. > > > > Actually, I just saw this and think it is a reasonably good idea. Rather > than trying to check the same functions over and over, we can 'cache' the > answers via an implicit function attribute (only when one of the relevant > diagnostics is enabled). I'm not sure I would spell it `[[noreturn]]` even > when implicit (as that could result in cascading diagnostics, and I'm not > sure I want the optimization outcomes), but it would be generally more > accurate. > > > > Sorry for not seeing this sooner.
No issues. I will work on it further, thanks. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145166 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
