Re: [libcxx] r291961 - Add _LIBCPP_DIAGNOSE_WARNING and _LIBCPP_DIAGNOSE_ERROR macros.

2017-01-23 Thread George Burgess via cfe-commits
> However I do want a little special behavior for libc++ [...] I have no problem with this: I just wanted to be sure that we could reasonably use this feature for things that aren't libcxx. :) > Libc++ defines some symbols within the global namespace, and we'll need a way to group those as part o

Re: [libcxx] r291961 - Add _LIBCPP_DIAGNOSE_WARNING and _LIBCPP_DIAGNOSE_ERROR macros.

2017-01-23 Thread George Burgess via cfe-commits
I like the idea of tagging diagnose_ifs with tags, though I wonder how this could be made applicable to code outside of libcxx. Specifically, if I import some big library that uses diagnose_if, then I'd still need to use `-Wno-user-defined-warnings` if said lib had a single diagnose_if that I didn'

Re: [libcxx] r291961 - Add _LIBCPP_DIAGNOSE_WARNING and _LIBCPP_DIAGNOSE_ERROR macros.

2017-01-23 Thread George Burgess via cfe-commits
The only plan that we have at the moment is basically for a -Wno-user-defined-warnings-in-system-headers type of flag. I agree that it would be nice if we could be more granular than this, so I'll think about what we can do. On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Nico Weber wrote: > This happens to fi

Re: [PATCH] __attribute__((enable_if)) and non-overloaded member functions

2015-09-25 Thread George Burgess via cfe-commits
Sorry for the delay -- didn't see this email come in. Committed as r248595. :) On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Ettore Speziale wrote: > Hello, > > > Looks good to me! > > > > Do you have commit access, or would you like for me to commit it for you? > > I do not have commit access. It would be

Re: [PATCH] __attribute__((enable_if)) and non-overloaded member functions

2015-09-22 Thread George Burgess via cfe-commits
Looks good to me! Do you have commit access, or would you like for me to commit it for you? George On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Ettore Speziale wrote: > Hello, > > > It looks like the attached patch is the same as the original one? > > I’ve attache the wrong patch. Here is the right one: >

Re: [PATCH] __attribute__((enable_if)) and non-overloaded member functions

2015-09-21 Thread George Burgess via cfe-commits
> sorry for the late reply, I did not note this email … No problem! :) It looks like the attached patch is the same as the original one? George On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Ettore Speziale wrote: > Hello, > > sorry for the late reply, I did not note this email … > > > > Sure. :) Review

Re: [PATCH] __attribute__((enable_if)) and non-overloaded member functions

2015-09-16 Thread George Burgess via cfe-commits
Sure. :) Review is based off the attachment I grabbed from here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20150824/136904.html A few nits: - test/Sema/enable_if.cpp line 24: Please use __attribute__(( instead of __attribute(( - Can we have a similar test for a function that returns