[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: llvm-bugs
Subject: [llvm-bugs] [Bug 50940] New: Consider warning on redundant attributes
From: via llvm-bugs <llvm-bugs () lists ! llvm ! org>
Date: 2021-06-30 12:56:49
Message-ID: bug-50940-206 () http ! bugs ! llvm ! org/
[Download RAW message or body]
--1625057809.efDaA4c41.18384
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 05:56:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://bugs.llvm.org/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50940
Bug ID: 50940
Summary: Consider warning on redundant attributes
Product: clang
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P
Component: Frontend
Assignee: unassignedclangbugs@nondot.org
Reporter: nicolasweber@gmx.de
CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org, neeilans@live.com,
richard-llvm@metafoo.co.uk
clang currently allows this without complaint:
[[nodiscard]] [[nodiscard]] int f() { return 4; }
The duplicate `[[nodiscard]]` is harmless, but also pointless and a copy-paste
artifact. We should maybe warn on it.
We very likely shouldn't warn if one `[[nodiscard]]` is on the decl and another
on the definition.
We possibly shouldn't warn on it if one of the copies comes from a macro.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--1625057809.efDaA4c41.18384
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 05:56:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://bugs.llvm.org/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.llvm.org/">
</head>
<body><table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>Bug ID</th>
<td><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Consider warning on redundant attributes"
href="https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50940">50940</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Summary</th>
<td>Consider warning on redundant attributes
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Product</th>
<td>clang
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Version</th>
<td>unspecified
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Hardware</th>
<td>PC
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>OS</th>
<td>All
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Status</th>
<td>NEW
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Severity</th>
<td>enhancement
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Priority</th>
<td>P
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Component</th>
<td>Frontend
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Assignee</th>
<td>unassignedclangbugs@nondot.org
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Reporter</th>
<td>nicolasweber@gmx.de
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>CC</th>
<td>llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org, neeilans@live.com, richard-llvm@metafoo.co.uk
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<pre>clang currently allows this without complaint:
[[nodiscard]] [[nodiscard]] int f() { return 4; }
The duplicate `[[nodiscard]]` is harmless, but also pointless and a copy-paste
artifact. We should maybe warn on it.
We very likely shouldn't warn if one `[[nodiscard]]` is on the decl and another
on the definition.
We possibly shouldn't warn on it if one of the copies comes from a macro.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
--1625057809.efDaA4c41.18384--
[Attachment #3 (text/plain)]
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic