The newly-added notes from r290132 are too noisy even when the fix-it
is valid. For the existing warning from r286521, it's probably the
right decision 95% of the time to put the change outside the macro if
the array is outside the macro and inside otherwise, but I don't want
to overthink it right now.
Caught by the ASan bot!
More rdar://problem/29524992
llvm-svn: 290141
This is especially important for arrays, since no one knows the proper
syntax for putting qualifiers in arrays.
nullability.h:3:26: warning: array parameter is missing a nullability type specifier (_Nonnull, _Nullable, or _Null_unspecified)
void arrayParameter(int x[]);
^
nullability.h:3:26: note: insert '_Nullable' if the array parameter may be null
void arrayParameter(int x[]);
^
_Nullable
nullability.h:3:26: note: insert '_Nonnull' if the array parameter should never be null
void arrayParameter(int x[]);
^
_Nonnull
rdar://problem/29524992
llvm-svn: 290132
...or within a reference. Both of these add an extra level of
indirection that make us less certain that the pointer really was
supposed to be non-nullable. However, changing the default behavior
would be a breaking change, so we'll just make it a warning instead.
Part of rdar://problem/25846421
llvm-svn: 286521
Jordan Rose