On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 15:56:40 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Do I understand you correctly that clang-cl uses "mostly" the same arguments > as cl, but uses the clang warnings system, e.g. -Wno-foo-loops instead of > C1234? That's correct. Clang-cl only supports the following cl warning parameters: /W0 Disable all warnings /W1 Enable -Wall /W2 Enable -Wall /W3 Enable -Wall /W4 Enable -Wall and -Wextra /Wall Enable -Weverything note how `Wall` differs in meaning between clang and clang-cl. [Source](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#id10) > I assume that means that even with your linked patches, the build will spew > out warnings. Right, with this patch the build produces warnings. No per-file or per-module suppressions are applied. > we need to design the integration of clang-cl in a way that we can > (hopefully) reuse existing clang warning disables. I'd love that. Got any preferences on how that should be handled? > And, oh, I must say that I think "clcl" as name for the toolchain is really > bad. :-( It was not my first choice. I tried `clang-cl` first; the scripts didn't like the dash. Then I tried `clangcl`, and some of the changes found their way into the MacOS build. `findstring` is tricky to get right. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17019#issuecomment-1847539074
