zmodem wrote:
> I think moving it to -Wextra may be a more palatable approach. What do others
> think?
Sounds good to me, and I think James makes a good argument.
Does that actually help LLVM and libc++ though? I think at least LLVM does
enable -Wextra.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/p
AaronBallman wrote:
> @DKLoehr @AaronBallman Did you see the revert?
Thank you for the ping, I did not see the revert. Thanks for catching that and
sorry for the disruption!
Given that this disrupts both LLVM and libc++, I think that's plenty of signal
that "on by default" isn't really the be
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Sirraide approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jyknight wrote:
Wait, _on by default_?
Perhaps I'm out of line with current thinking here, but IMO, on-by-default
should only diagnose things which are likely to be harmful -- NOT just a style
or inefficiency issue, which seems to be all this is diagnosing. That LLVM's
style conflicts with it
philnik777 wrote:
@DKLoehr @AaronBallman Did you see the revert?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jyknight wrote:
LLVM's intentional usage is either to reduce redundant vtable emission via
ensuring there is a key method, OR, to intentionally create a useless vtable,
in order to reduce redundant debuginfo emission (it can be emitted only in the
vtable's TU when there's a vtable.) I expect b
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clang-s390x-linux` running
on `systemz-1` while building `clang,llvm` at step 5 "ninja check 1".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/42/builds/3933
Here is the relevant piece of the build
AaronBallman wrote:
> Wait, _on by default_?
>
> Perhaps I'm out of line with current thinking here, but IMO, on-by-default
> should only diagnose things which are likely to be harmful -- NOT just a
> style or inefficiency issue, which seems to be all this is diagnosing. That
> LLVM's style c
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `llvm-clang-x86_64-darwin`
running on `doug-worker-3` while building `clang,llvm` at step 6
"test-build-unified-tree-check-all".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/23/builds/8938
Here is
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`sanitizer-x86_64-linux-android` running on `sanitizer-buildbot-android` while
building `clang,llvm` at step 2 "annotate".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/186/builds/7809
Here is the r
https://github.com/zmodem closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/zmodem approved this pull request.
lgtm
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -689,7 +689,7 @@ if ( LLVM_COMPILER_IS_GCC_COMPATIBLE OR
CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID MATCHES "XL" )
endif( LLVM_COMPILER_IS_GCC_COMPATIBLE OR CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID MATCHES "XL" )
if (CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID MATCHES "Clang")
- append("-Werror=unguarded-availability-new" CMAKE_C_FL
https://github.com/DKLoehr updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
>From 792e1f3d062415134b8dfc4e8ed52f769f3e01f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Devon Loehr
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:59:44 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Enable by default
---
clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGr
@@ -689,7 +689,7 @@ if ( LLVM_COMPILER_IS_GCC_COMPATIBLE OR
CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID MATCHES "XL" )
endif( LLVM_COMPILER_IS_GCC_COMPATIBLE OR CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID MATCHES "XL" )
if (CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID MATCHES "Clang")
- append("-Werror=unguarded-availability-new" CMAKE_C_FL
Sirraide wrote:
> Ah, missed that, sorry. It seems there hasn't been a release since the
> warning was added, and the existing release note seems to still apply:
Ah, I thought it was an older warning. In that case we don’t need a release note
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
__
DKLoehr wrote:
Ah, missed that, sorry. It seems there hasn't been a release since the warning
was added, and the existing release note seems to still apply:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8bdcd0a96e65557c8c3bf506d186c49002db6463/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst?plain=1#L291
https://githu
https://github.com/DKLoehr created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
This turns on the unnecessary-virtual-specifier warning in genera, but disables
it when building LLVM. It also tweaks the warning description to be slightly
more accurate.
Background: I've been working on clea
https://github.com/Sirraide edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Sirraide commented:
The release note is still missing.
ut other than that this looks fine I think, but I’d say wait a few days before
merging in case anyone else has any opinions as to whether this should be
enabled by default or not.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pul
DKLoehr wrote:
Ach, I was so focused on making the build work that I forgot to run tests...
Fixed now, either by disabling the warning or adding it as expected, as seemed
appropriate.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
___
cfe-commits ma
https://github.com/Sirraide edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Sirraide edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Sirraide commented:
Looks like you’ll have to update some tests because CI is failing (also, I’d be
very surprised if we didn’t have tests for this). Also, this still needs a
release note.
Maybe a fix for the virtual anchor pattern would be to somehow not emit the
warning f
DKLoehr wrote:
@zmodem Do you mind taking a look?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Devon Loehr (DKLoehr)
Changes
This turns on the unnecessary-virtual-specifier warning in genera, but disables
it when building LLVM. It also tweaks the warning description to be slightly
more accurate.
Background: I've been working on cl
27 matches
Mail list logo
