Right, it doesn't work. Here's a patch without those included, since I assume getting those to work will require a bit more effort.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Ahmed Charles <[email protected]> wrote: >> it probably only does a subset of what it claims. I'm not sure what a >> better name would be and I'm certainly not experienced enough to know >> all of the other command line warnings that are possible. >> >> Do you have a recommendation other than having a specific flag for each >> instance? > > That's not really what I was trying to get at. What I think will > happen is that we'll end up telling the user that a warning is > controlled by -Winvalid-commandline-option, but > -Wno-invalid-commandline-option won't actually turn it off. > > -Eli > >> From: Eli Friedman >> Sent: 10/10/2011 5:32 PM >> To: Ahmed Charles >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] Warning flags >> Does -Wno-invalid-commandline-option actually work? If not, it seems >> confusing to advertise it. >> >> -Eli >> >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Ahmed Charles <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Here we go. >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Ahmed Charles <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Yes, I used git, so it's easy to manage lots of small patches, but one >>>> large one is fine as well. I'll resend later. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Do you have one aggregate patch that will make this easier to review? >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 1:53 AM, Ahmed Charles wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Here is the first few. They have to be applied in order, or the >>>>>> changes in the test will conflict. And hopefully the naming is >>>>>> appealing enough. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Ahmed Charles <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Ahmed Charles wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm looking into adding flags for the various warnings without them >>>>>>>> and was >>>>>>>> wondering what the bar is in terms of test cases? It seems like >>>>>>>> existing >>>>>>>> flags don't have explicit test cases and in some cases neither do the >>>>>>>> warnings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good questions. These are two separate issues. It's simply bad that >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> have warnings that aren't being tested at all (behaviorally). For >>>>>>>> those we >>>>>>>> should continue to add test cases to improve our coverage of the >>>>>>>> compiler's >>>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>>>> For testing coverage of warning flags, the only thing you could really >>>>>>>> test >>>>>>>> from a behavior perspective is whether passing -W/-Wno<warning> >>>>>>>> enables/disables the warning (or use pragmas that accomplish the same >>>>>>>> thing). Many warnings are on by default, so many of the tests would >>>>>>>> need to >>>>>>>> go for the "disable warning" route. We are pretty confident that the >>>>>>>> general warning suppression/enabling mechanism works (it is well >>>>>>>> tested), so >>>>>>>> we only really need to add specific tests like these for warnings >>>>>>>> where it >>>>>>>> is clear we want to tease out some warning from a larger class of >>>>>>>> warnings >>>>>>>> and have the ability to disable it (e.g., a user explicitly requested >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> functionality). >>>>>>>> So, for testing whether or not a warning has a flag, we have >>>>>>>> test/Misc/warning-flags.c. Essentially we run diagtool to list all the >>>>>>>> warnings that are not covered by a flag. Whenever a warning that was >>>>>>>> previously not covered by a flag gets a flag, this test needs to be >>>>>>>> updated >>>>>>>> (i.e., remove the entry). That's usually sufficient in my opinion to >>>>>>>> test >>>>>>>> that a warning is covered by a flag. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, that's what I thought. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ahmed Charles >>>>>>> >>>>>> <0003-Place-diagnostic-backslash_newline_space-under-the-W.patch><0004-Place-diagnostics-null_in_string-null_in_char-and-nu.patch><0005-Place-renamed-diagnostic-ext_charize_microsoft-under.patch><0007-Place-diagnostic-ext_dollar_in_identifier-under-the-.patch><0008-Place-diagnostics-ext_c99_array_usage-ext_c99_compou.patch><0009-Place-diagnostic-ext_auto_storage_class-under-the-Wa.patch><0010-Place-diagnostics-ext_catch_incomplete_ref-and-ext_c.patch><0011-Place-diagnostics-ext_flexible_array_in_array-and-ex.patch><0012-Place-diagnostic-warn_delete_incomplete-under-the-Wd.patch><0013-Place-diagnostics-warn_c_kext-warn_drv_assuming_mflo.patch><0014-Place-diagnostics-warn_ucn_escape_too_large-and-warn.patch> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ahmed Charles >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cfe-commits mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>> >>> >> > -- Ahmed Charles
0001-Place-various-warnings-under-new-W-flags.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
