search for: r145578

On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:20 PM, David Blaikie wrote: >>>> Thanks Chris, committed as r145578. I don't suppose you'll mind some >>>> similar commits as I encounter them? >>> >>> Yep, please feel free. >> >> While you said this - given that I've now gone & fixed /every/ >> violation of -Wweak-vtables across LLVM & Clang (a...

...;> if it looks good to anyone I'll check that in) but a particular set of >> them have been a little more problematic. > > Nice, please commit your patch.  I don't know about explicit instantiations though, maybe a C++ guru on the clang list knows. Thanks Chris, committed as r145578. I don't suppose you'll mind some similar commits as I encounter them? (there's also some legitimate unreachable code warnings I'd be happy to fix as I find them, things like: --- a/lib/Support/CommandLine.cpp +++ b/lib/Support/CommandLine.cpp @@ -294,10 +294,7 @@ static inline bo...

...to anyone I'll check that in) but a particular set of >>> them have been a little more problematic. >> >> Nice, please commit your patch. I don't know about explicit instantiations though, maybe a C++ guru on the clang list knows. > > Thanks Chris, committed as r145578. I don't suppose you'll mind some > similar commits as I encounter them? Yep, please feel free. > (there's also some legitimate unreachable code warnings I'd be happy > to fix as I find them, things like: > > --- a/lib/Support/CommandLine.cpp > +++ b/lib/Support...

...check that in) but a particular set of >>>> them have been a little more problematic. >>> >>> Nice, please commit your patch.  I don't know about explicit instantiations though, maybe a C++ guru on the clang list knows. >> >> Thanks Chris, committed as r145578. I don't suppose you'll mind some >> similar commits as I encounter them? > > Yep, please feel free. While you said this - given that I've now gone & fixed /every/ violation of -Wweak-vtables across LLVM & Clang (apart from some llvm target tblgen problems - not sur...

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:20 PM, David Blaikie wrote: >>> Thanks Chris, committed as r145578. I don't suppose you'll mind some >>> similar commits as I encounter them? >> >> Yep, please feel free. > > While you said this - given that I've now gone & fixed /every/ > violation of -Wweak-vtables across LLVM & Clang (apart from some llvm >...

On Nov 29, 2011, at 12:26 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > For a bit of an experiment I've been trying to compile LLVM & Clang > with -Weverything (disabling any errors that seem like more noise/less > interesting). One warning I've recently hit a few instances of is > -Wweak-vtable which is, in fact, an explicitly documented LLVM coding > standard (

...check that in) but a particular set of >>>> them have been a little more problematic. >>> >>> Nice, please commit your patch.  I don't know about explicit instantiations though, maybe a C++ guru on the clang list knows. >> >> Thanks Chris, committed as r145578. I don't suppose you'll mind some >> similar commits as I encounter them? > > Yep, please feel free. Thanks - I'll see what comes up. >> (there's also some legitimate unreachable code warnings I'd be happy >> to fix as I find them, things like: >>...

For a bit of an experiment I've been trying to compile LLVM & Clang with -Weverything (disabling any errors that seem like more noise/less interesting). One warning I've recently hit a few instances of is -Wweak-vtable which is, in fact, an explicitly documented LLVM coding standard ( http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#ll_virtual_anch ). Some instances of this have been easy to