[PATCH] Jump scope checker recovery

[Richard Smith]

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

OK, then LGTM.


> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140505/c7f408ee/attachment.html>