| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fixes nullability fix-it for `id<SomeProtocol>`. With this change
nullability specifier is inserted after ">" instead of between
"id" and "<".
rdar://problem/34260995
Reviewers: jordan_rose, doug.gregor, ahatanak, arphaman
Reviewed By: jordan_rose
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38327
llvm-svn: 314473
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
