[PATCH] Jump scope checker recovery

[Richard Smith]

Seems like a good idea to me. Are there any cases where we should be
suppressing diagnostics when the function is invalid? (This would be the
case if adding more statements could cause us to suppress a diagnostic.) I
can't think of any likely ones -- discarding an invalid GNU label
declaration might have this effect, but I'm OK with bogus warnings in that
case.


On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:

> Ping.
>
>
> On 30/04/2014 06:24, Alp Toker wrote:
>
>> Add support for partial jump scope checking. This lets us diagnose and
>> perform more complete semantic analysis when faced with errors in the
>> function body or declaration.
>>
>> In particular this improves the interactive editing experience where jump
>> diagnostics were appearing and disappearing as the user typed.
>>
>
> This patch will also be necessary to support further work on goto code
> completion BTW.
>
>
>
>> Alp.
>>
>>
> --
> http://www.nuanti.com
> the browser experts
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140505/5b9f7f89/attachment.html>