- User Since
- Mar 14 2013, 3:16 PM (239 w, 3 d)
LGTM, thank you!
LGTM, thank you!
(I've not had the chance to complete a full review, but these are some thoughts thus far.)
I've commit in r315856, thank you for the reviews!
Fri, Oct 13
Sun, Oct 8
The attribute and sema bits look good to me, but I agree that you might want Richard's opinions before committing.
Sat, Oct 7
Corrected review feedback from Richard.
Fri, Oct 6
I've commit in r315057. Thank you!
Thu, Oct 5
Adding @dberlin for licensing discussion questions.
Wed, Oct 4
Aside from a small nit, this LGTM, thanks!
Mon, Oct 2
LGTM, with a comment about the unrelated test change.
Fri, Sep 29
Thu, Sep 28
Committed in r314463.
LGTM! Do you need me to commit on your behalf?
This is somewhat complicated in that noexcept, throw(), and attribute(())/__declspec no throw are all synonyms for one another except for the type system effect differences between attribute and __declspec, but I think our behavior here is reasonable.
Wed, Sep 27
The code for printf diagnostics + new tests are supposed to be added by a separate diff.
Tue, Sep 26
Mon, Sep 25
I'm not certain we have the semantics of __declspec(nothrow) exactly correct -- a simple test shows that __attribute__((nothrow)), __declspec(nothrow), and noexcept(true) are subtly different.
Aside from a minor testing nit, LGTM! Thanks!
Fri, Sep 22
Aside from a few minor nits, LGTM!
Thank you for working on this -- it's very nice functionality!
Wed, Sep 20
Tue, Sep 19
Sep 15 2017
Adding a few reviewers to hopefully help Roman get some feedback.
Sep 14 2017
Updated based on review feedback.
Sep 13 2017
Added full context, no other changes from previous patch.
Sep 12 2017
Good catch on the deleted constructor -- LGTM still!
LGTM, with a few last typos.
Updates based on review feedback.
Sep 8 2017
Updated based on Richard's comments and some further discussion on IRC.
Please run the test through clang-format, but otherwise LGTM!
The bulk of the patch LGTM as well, but it should still have a test case.
Does this need test?
Sep 5 2017
Have you run this check over any large code bases to see what the quality of the diagnostics are?
Aside from a few small nits, this looks reasonable. Have you run it over any large code bases that use signals to test the quality of the check?
Sep 4 2017
Sep 1 2017
Assuming no sphinx issues with the docs, this LGTM, thank you!
Aug 31 2017
LGTM! Thank you for working on this!