On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 19:37, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote: >> Keeping -Wformat-nonstandard out of -Wformat and having it in >> -pedantic sounds perfectly fine to me. I expect that lines up with >> what gcc does too. > > Ok, I think that approach is worth experimenting with.
Cool. I think getting this warning in under -pedantic is a good step in the right direction. > I've looked at the patch, and other than the default configuration of the > warnings, it looks okay to me. I've updated the patch to make the warning DefaultIgnore and ExtWarn. I've also changed it to not make a difference between -std=c99 and -std=gnu99. If the user specifies -pedantic, I think we should warn for '%ms' even if the user has selected -std=gnu99. This matches gcc behavior too, and it's extra important because if the user doesn't specify the -std flag, then gnu99 seems the be the default c mode. > One nit on wording in the diagnostic: "non-standard" or "non-portable"? The > former is more technically accurate, but the latter is the implication the > user cares about. What do you think? I'd prefer "non-standard", but I don't feel strongly about it. I noticed that this sparks new failures in "clang-tests/gcc-4_2-testsuite" (excess warning), so I'm attaching a patch for that too. Please take a look. - Hans
clang-testsuite.diff
Description: Binary data
non-standard-format-strings-2.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
