[PATCH] Jump scope checker recovery

[Alp Toker]

On 05/05/2014 22:47, Richard Smith wrote:
> 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.

Right, the early returns have worked out surprisingly well and __label__ 
doing fine too. Will keep an eye on it but I think we're OK.

Alp.



>
>
> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
>     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>

-- 
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts