On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:27 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > Could/should we support -Wno-* by default anyway? I mean if we don't > have the warning it is certainly not on. > (on the other hand, as a user I wouldn't mind knowing if I'm passing > useless flags. Except when I'm trying to use multiple compilers and > turn something off in one which isn't present in the other. Minor > convenience to have that silently(ish) accepted on the no supporting > compiler) > > > Hi David, > > Numerous people have requested that all warnings can be placed under a -W > flag, and allow them to selectively turn them on or off. I'll try and > summarize why I think this is a critical feature. > Oh, sorry - I think I wasn't clear. I believe I understand & agree with the motivation (& if I get a chance I'll have a go & providing some patches to group the ungrouped warnings to help get that 304 down to zero). My point was (& it's possible this is the existing behavior, I don't have access to clang right now to test) to counter Bob's point (that he wouldn't want to break users who were disabling (-Wno-blah) the warning when the warning was removed): Could we just silently allow users to pass -Wno-foo & if we don't have a warning called 'foo' we could just silently swallow this flag & ignore it? Since we don't support the 'foo' warning anyway, we can trivially support -Wno-foo. - David
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
