On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:24:49AM -0800, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:22:40PM +0000, John Keeping wrote: > > > > > [1] http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13747 > > > > > > Yeah, I think it is exactly the same issue, and the fix they mention > > > there would apply to us, too. > > > > > > Is it worth applying this at all, then? Or should we apply it but limit > > > it with a clang version macro (they mention r163034, but I do not know > > > if it is in a released version yet, nor what macros are available to > > > inspect the version)? > > > > That maps to revision 06b3a06007 in their git repository [1], which is > > contained in remotes/origin/release_32 so I think that change should be > > in release 3.2, where I still see the warning (although that's not using > > a clang built from that source), so I don't think that the fix for that > > bug removes the warning in this case. > > > > [1] http://llvm.org/git/clang.git > > Thanks for checking. I'd rather squelch the warning completely (as in my > re-post of Max's patch from a few minutes ago), and we can loosen it > (possibly with a version check) later when a fix is widely disseminated. I checked again with a trunk build of clang and the warning's still there, so I've created a clang bug [1] to see if they will change the behaviour. I agree that we should squelch the warning for now, it can be changed into a version check if it's accepted as a bug and once we know what version it's fixed in. [1] http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14968 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html