On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:33 AM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Thanks John. That's sums it up well. Right now the workflow people know is to pass -Wno- to silence a warning, and seeing the warning flag in the diagnostic. This flag is completely different from that simple workflow. My understanding was that ever clang warning should be controllable under a -W flag. That's not the case with all -pedantic warnings. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
