================
@@ -1641,6 +1641,17 @@ def warn_implicitly_retains_self : Warning <
"block implicitly retains 'self'; explicitly mention 'self' to indicate "
"this is intended behavior">,
InGroup<DiagGroup<"implicit-retain-self">>, DefaultIgnore;
+def warn_blocks_capturing_this : Warning<"block implicitly captures 'this'">,
+ InGroup<DiagGroup<"blocks-capturing-this">>,
+ DefaultIgnore;
+def warn_blocks_capturing_reference
+ : Warning<"block implicitly captures a C++ reference">,
+ InGroup<DiagGroup<"blocks-capturing-reference">>,
+ DefaultIgnore;
+def warn_blocks_capturing_raw_pointer
+ : Warning<"block implicitly captures a raw pointer">,
----------------
sdefresne wrote:
Okay. I'll investigate defining and using a new attributes.
Do you think this should be an attributes on the captured variables e.g.
`__attribute__((capturable)) void* userData` or on the block e.g.
`__attribute__((can_capture_pointers)) auto dispose = ^{ ... };` or both?
On one hand an attribute on the variable would make it difficult to silence the
warnings about capturing `this` (since `this` is implicitly available, it is
not easy to mark it with the attribute), and would probably require defining a
local variable `_this` and mark it with the attribute.
On the other hand an attribute on the block would probably make it too easy to
silence all the warnings.
Finally, I have a question about process. Should I summarize all the discussion
in the issue #143924? Should I write a formal design document for the warning
or is the github issue enough?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144388
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
