[lld] r254105 - Reapply r254098.

[Richard Trieu via llvm-commits]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:20 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:14 AM, George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com>
> wrote:
>
>> >If it helps, I'll make it a post-commit review request: please change
>> this to auto because of the subtleties here.
>> >
>> >Was this caught by a buildbot with Clang's warning, or due to a test
>> failing on a machine where size_t != unsigned?
>> >
>> >- Dave
>>
>>
>> If failed due to build bot`s error where size_t != unsigned I guess. My
>> msvs/32x config compiled fine that place.
>>
>
> OK - I think we have a warning for this too, but maybe it hasn't been
> rolled out. Not sure. (cc'd Richard Trieu who implemented/worked on the
> warning, to see what the status is)
>

Which warning are you talking about?  The warning assign to different
integer types or one about range loops not having the correct type?

-Wshorten-64-to-32 will sometimes catch assignments between size_t and
unsigned, but this is a noisy warning and it may not detect it because it
is inside templates.

-Wrange-loop-analysis performs checks on the type, but it deals with
constness and references, so it wouldn't catch this either.

>
> But yeah, especially if this actually introduced a bug (not just a
> compiler warning), I'd really prefer auto here. These sort of mistakes are
> pretty easy.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20151130/be021071/attachment.html>