Re: [PATCH] fix some clang warnings

From: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Date: Jan 16, 2013, 19:01 UTC
Message-ID: <20130116190137.GD2476@farnsworth.metanate.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130116182449.GA4881@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:24:49AM -0800, Jeff King wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:22:40PM +0000, John Keeping wrote:
> 
> > > > [1] http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13747
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I think it is exactly the same issue, and the fix they mention
> > > there would apply to us, too.
> > > 
> > > Is it worth applying this at all, then? Or should we apply it but limit
> > > it with a clang version macro (they mention r163034, but I do not know
> > > if it is in a released version yet, nor what macros are available to
> > > inspect the version)?
> > 
> > That maps to revision 06b3a06007 in their git repository [1], which is
> > contained in remotes/origin/release_32 so I think that change should be
> > in release 3.2, where I still see the warning (although that's not using
> > a clang built from that source), so I don't think that the fix for that
> > bug removes the warning in this case.
> > 
> > [1] http://llvm.org/git/clang.git
> 
> Thanks for checking. I'd rather squelch the warning completely (as in my
> re-post of Max's patch from a few minutes ago), and we can loosen it
> (possibly with a version check) later when a fix is widely disseminated.

I checked again with a trunk build of clang and the warning's still there, so I've created a clang bug [1] to see if they will change the behaviour.

I agree that we should squelch the warning for now, it can be changed into a version check if it's accepted as a bug and once we know what version it's fixed in.

[1] http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14968