On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: > Author: kremenek > Date: Wed Jun 20 02:03:37 2012 > New Revision: 158796 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=158796&view=rev > Log: > Revert "Provide a -no-pedantic to cancel out -pedantic." This needs to be > designed > a bit further. We may wish to just have -Wno flags to silence warnings, and > not have a -no-pedantic. > > Why? This seems to make using '-pedantic' fairly problematic... > > A lot of build systems essentially only allow appending flags to change the > build flags in use, and it seems bad to leave flags around which "poison" the > entire command because of a lack of a '-no-*' variant. > > Note that I'm not really endorsing the use of '-pedantic'; I generally prefer > the -W flags (with their -Wno- variants). I'm just a bit concerned about not > allowing appending an option to reverse the decision about '-pedantic'.
I think Ted's position here is that he wants -pedantic to be an alias for -Wpedantic, which would be cancelled by -Wno-pedantic. I continue to believe that, even if we provide -Wno-pedantic, the existence of -pedantic basically mandates an analogous -no-pedantic as well; however, Ted asked me to revert while we discussed it, only he beat me to it. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
