Makes sense. Thanks! On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
