I prefer to just tweak the comment. We've already fought the fight to get real code to adopt to a world where Clang issues more warnings than GCC. I see no reason to give up that ground.
On Feb 15, 2012, at 7:53 AM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: >> What is the motivation for this patch? Clang defaulting to more warnings on >> than gcc is a feature, not a bug. > > I had the impression that these warnings are on by default without > -Wall mostly by accident. When I added -Wdangling-else, I wasn't aware > that it would fire without -Wall, and dblaikie unsuccessfully tried to > move -Wswitch to -Wall here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg45730.html > > I'm just as happy with tweaking the comment above -Wall in the .td > file instead and not changing any behavior (patch for that attached) > if you think all these warnings should stay on by default. > > Nico > <clang-wall-different.patch>_______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
