[cfe-commits] Null init suggestion

[David Blaikie]

Hmm - apologies. Realized I'd not actually sent the relevant patch, but just
a copy of the previous one that Doug had already applied.

Here's the right one.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:39 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Side note: Do we really need that first note if we're providing the second
>>> note? I realize in some cases the first note is all we'll get, because
>>> there's no initialization we can guess to provide. But in the cases where
>>> there is an init suggestion, could we just provide that instead of the
>>> "variable '%s' is declared here"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Good point. It seems that we don't need to provide the first note if we
>>> know we're providing the second. Looping in Ted to get his opinion.
>>>
>>
>> Well - here's a patch you can use if you decide it's the right way to go.
>> (I'm only seeing one clang test failure in something
>> unrelated: Modules/lookup.cpp)
>>
>
> Ted - any thoughts on this?
>
> - David
>
> [should I reinclude a patch when I bump a CR? generally I just assume
> people will see the original email with the patch attached & I don't want to
> fill up people's mailboxes more than necessary]
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20110904/e6110790/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: init_note.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 17509 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20110904/e6110790/attachment.obj>