[llvm-commits] [llvm-gcc-4.2] r45054 - /llvm-gcc-4.2/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/930411-1.c

[Chris Lattner]

On Dec 16, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:

>> I definitely agree, which is why I added it in the first place :).
>> The problem is that it isn't hooked up with any of the other
>> diagnostics machinery, so it isn't controllable and doesn't give
>> decent location info (for example).
>>
>> I don't know that it really provides a good user experience.  In the
>> LTO case with debug info, we could do better.
>
> So what's your idea, detect it somewhere else?  Where were you  
> thinking?

For now I think we just just disable the warning.

In the future, this could naturally be handled with Ted's work on  
static analysis stuff.  The nice thing about doing it at the source  
level is that you can detect mismatches that are broken in more subtle  
ways as well, such as int foo()  vs long foo().  You also get good  
diagnostics hooks and location info.

-Chris