rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44539#1106443, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44539#1106152, @rjmccall wrote: > > > This was approved by the Objective-C language group as a default-off > > warning. > > > We usually do not expose new default-off warnings because experience shows > that they rarely ever get enabled by users. If the ObjC group doesn't think > this should be on by default, I wonder if it should be included in Clang at > all. That's a fair question to ask. In this case, I'm in favor of adding it because we have evidence of there being a substantial set of users who would enable it enthusiastically. ================ Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:1018 +def warn_objc_property_assign_on_object : Warning< + "'assign' attribute must not be of object type, use 'unsafe_unretained' instead">, + InGroup<ObjCPropertyAssignOnObjectType>, DefaultIgnore; ---------------- QF5690 wrote: > rjmccall wrote: > > "must" is rather strong for a warning. Maybe something more like "'assign' > > attribute on property of object type could be 'unsafe_unretained'"? > But "could be" is rather weak :) > May be "Prefer using explicit 'unsafe_unretained' attribute instead of > 'assign' for object types", or "Using explicit 'unsafe_unretained' attribute > instead of 'assign' for object types is preferred" (if passive voice is > preferred) Neither of those is quite in the standard diagnostic "voice". Maybe something like "'assign' property of object type may become a dangling reference; consider using 'unsafe_unretained'"? Oh, you should probably not warn about `Class` types. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D44539 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
