[PATCH] D62462: [llvm-objdump] Add warning messages if disassembly + source for problematic inputs

[Mike Pozulp via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

mmpozulp marked an inline comment as done.
mmpozulp added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/tools/llvm-objdump/llvm-objdump.cpp:596
+    if(!WarnedNoDebugInfo) {
+      warn(Twine("failed to parse debug info which may be missing"));
+      WarnedNoDebugInfo = true;
----------------
grimar wrote:
> You do not need `Twine(` here.
It appears that I have created a problem by adding the new `warn(Twine)` function. If I delete `Twine(` here, I get

```
llvm-objdump.cpp:594:61: error: call of overloaded 'warn(const char [48])' is ambiguous
       warn("failed to parse debug info which may be missing");
                                                             ^
llvm-objdump.cpp:375:6: note: candidate: 'void llvm::warn(llvm::StringRef)'
 void warn(StringRef Message) {
      ^~~~
llvm-objdump.cpp:380:6: note: candidate: 'void llvm::warn(llvm::Twine)'
 void warn(Twine Message) {

```

I needed `warn(Twine)` for calls like `warn("a message " + VariableName)` and `warn(formatv("a message {0}", VariableName))` which create Twines.

Is there a way to change the `warn()` API to resolve the ambiguity? That way the compiler would not have to force users to pick between `warn(Twine)` and `warn(StringRef)` with a tedious `Twine()` or `StringRef()` constructor call.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D62462/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D62462