dexonsmith added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp:7031 + Introduced) && + !S.Diags.isIgnored(diag::warn_unguarded_availability_new, Loc); + diag = NewWarning ? diag::warn_partial_availability_new ---------------- arphaman wrote: > erik.pilkington wrote: > > Sorry to keep this going so long, but why are we even checking isIgnored? > > The only difference it could make in whether we emit a diagnostic is if > > both: -Wunguarded-availability and -Wno-unguarded-availability-new are > > passed in, which seems like it would never happen, right? Even if somebody > > did pass that in, it seems reasonable to warn on old stuff but not new > > stuff. Maybe I'm missing something here? > Right, it's to handle the `-Wunguarded-availability > -Wno-unguarded-availability-new` case. Your argument makes sense though, we > could allow `-Wunguarded-availability -Wno-unguarded-availability-new` where > we warn on old APIs. Although that still seems kinda weird to me. Maybe > @dexonsmith has an opinion about this? I don't think the exact behaviour of `-Wunguarded-availability -Wno-unguarded-availability-new` is terribly important. I'm fine either way. But, having a predictable command-line interface is nice, and I'd expect that combination to show diagnostics only for old APIs. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D34264 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
