On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ivan Krasin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi llvm team! > > > > This patch adds support of -Wno-extension-used to make it possible to > > suppress the warning: > > > > lala.c:1:21: warning: extension used [-pedantic] > > double lala(double) asm("llvm.log.f64"); > > > > r140770 has started to promote this warning to error if -Werror is > > specified (which is absolutely correct). > > We have a test that checks some llvm intrinsics and it's not Clangy to > > drop -Werror just because one particular warning is expected. > > I have added the option to suppress this warning and has removed it > > from the test for warnings w/o suppression options. > > > > OK to commit? > > We really ought to clarify what exactly this is warning about and name > the warning group in a more intuitive way. -Wno-extension-used > doesn't give the user any idea what warning it is actually > suppressing. I'm drawing a blank as to what exactly to call it, > though. > Hi Eli, It suppresses any language extension used in the program source. I have no preference on how the flag should be named and I have chosen "extension-used" just to fit to the existing warning message: "warning: extension used [-pedantic]" Probably, a better name would be language-extension or language-extension-used. In this case -Wno-language-extension would give a good idea of what warning does it suppress. Are you fine with any of the options above? Do you have a better idea? > -Eli >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
