> There are a handful other tests failing in the same way. > > It would be nice if we could make the TypePrinter not print the > calling convention if it's the default one for the ABI, but > TypePrinter doesn't have a lot of context.. no Sema, no ASTContext :/They are all TypePrinter failures like this one? If so I would say we should not block on it since it is a small QOI issue. On the other hand Reid says it should be an easy fix, so we can wait a bit. Cheers, Rafael
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:>> There are a handful other tests failing in the same way. >> >> It would be nice if we could make the TypePrinter not print the >> calling convention if it's the default one for the ABI, but >> TypePrinter doesn't have a lot of context.. no Sema, no ASTContext :/ > > They are all TypePrinter failures like this one?Yes, all except this one (I think): error: 'error' diagnostics expected but not seen: File D:\src\llvm\tools\clang\test\SemaCXX\virtual-override.cpp Line 288: 'static' member function 'foo' overrides a virtual function error: 'error' diagnostics seen but not expected: File D:\src\llvm\tools\clang\test\SemaCXX\virtual-override.cpp Line 288: virtual function 'foo' has different calling convention attributes ('void ()') than the function it overrides (which has calling convention 'void () __attribute__((thiscall))') 2 errors generated. I guess this is also a QOI problem, but the diagnostic here gets pretty misleading. - Hans
> Yes, all except this one (I think): > > error: 'error' diagnostics expected but not seen: > File D:\src\llvm\tools\clang\test\SemaCXX\virtual-override.cpp Line > 288: 'static' member function 'foo' overrides a virtual function > error: 'error' diagnostics seen but not expected: > File D:\src\llvm\tools\clang\test\SemaCXX\virtual-override.cpp Line > 288: virtual function 'foo' has different calling convention > attributes ('void ()') than the function it overrides (which has > calling convention 'void () __attribute__((thiscall))') > 2 errors generated. > > I guess this is also a QOI problem, but the diagnostic here gets > pretty misleading.Yes, I guess this a case of the error being pedantically correct. We should suppress the second error. Cheers, Rafael