Summary:
It seems there isn't much enthusiasm for `-wtest` D45685.
This is more conservative version, which i had in the very first
revision of D44883, but that 'erroneously' got removed because of the review.
**Based on some [irc] discussions, it must really be documented that
we want all the new diagnostics to have their own flags, to ease
rollouts, transitions, etc.**
Please do note that i'm only adding `-Wno-self-assign-overloaded`,
but not `-Wno-self-assign-field-overloaded`, because i'm honestly
not aware of any false-positives from the `-field` variant,
but i can just as easily add it if wanted.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44883#1068561
Reviewers: dblaikie, aaron.ballman, thakis, rjmccall, rsmith
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Subscribers: Quuxplusone, chandlerc, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766
llvm-svn: 330651
Summary:
This has just bit me, so i though it would be nice to avoid that next time :)
Motivational case:
https://godbolt.org/g/cq9UNk
Basically, it's likely to happen if you don't like shadowing issues,
and use `-Wshadow` and friends. And it won't be diagnosed by clang.
The reason is, these self-assign diagnostics only work for builtin assignment
operators. Which makes sense, one could have a very special operator=,
that does something unusual in case of self-assignment,
so it may make sense to not warn on that.
But while it may be intentional in some cases, it may be a bug in other cases,
so it would be really great to have some diagnostic about it...
Reviewers: aaron.ballman, rsmith, rtrieu, nikola, rjmccall, dblaikie
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Subscribers: EricWF, lebedev.ri, thakis, Quuxplusone, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44883
llvm-svn: 329493
Roman Lebedev