On Feb 21, 2012, at 3:39 AM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Me too. > >> 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. Sounds great. > >> 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 don't either. I'm fine with staying with non-standard. > > 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. I did. The change looks reasonable. Please commit!
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
