On 11.07.2012, at 02:34, Martin Pool wrote:

> On 5 July 2012 21:35, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday 04 July 2012 09:53:46 Max Horn wrote:
>>> Using ccache with clang tends to generate tons of warnings, which can
>> range
>>> from simply being annoying, to causing autoconf failures. This is because
>>> ccache runs the compiler with "-E" on preprocessed input, but also passes
>>> -I, -isystem etc. flags on to the compiler. In clang, this triggers
>>> warnings about unused arguments.
>> 
>> err, -I/-isystem/-D/-U/etc... are preprocessor flags and are valid when
>> running
>> in preprocessor mode (-E).  i don't know if clang is broken, or your
>> analysis
>> is incorrect, but certainly that behavior you describe is wrong.
>> -mike
>> 
> 
> I agree with you there, Mike,

As do I, actually -- sorry, my email was indeed nonsense and confused. What I 
*meant* was that on the second run (the one without -E, with preprocessed data 
as input), clang prints out warnings.

Now, I am not saying that ccache is doing anything wrong here, and one may 
argue about the usefulness of this clang warning. But it is here, and it 
affects people who would otherwise love to use ccache with clang (and that's 
not just me ;).


> but I think the bug originally described in <
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8460> could possibly be valid.
> If you are compiling from a .i or .ii file, the -D and -I options can't
> have any effect.  It's reasonable for clang to emit a warning about it, and
> it would be reasonable for ccache to strip those options when compiling a
> preprocessed file.

Aye, if that would be acceptable for the ccache authors, that would be the best 
solution I think. It would certainly be much cleaner than trying to detect 
clang and passing options to it to disable that warning...



Thanks a lot,
Max
_______________________________________________
ccache mailing list
ccache@lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache

Reply via email to