On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Ted Kremenek wrote: > > > 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. > > I'd also like it if we never produced [-pedantic] in a diagnostic as the > warning flag. [-Wpedantic] would be much more consistent. I completely agree with presenting the user *only* with '-Wpedantic' and variants. That said, for compatibility, I think we should support '-pedantic' and '-no-pedantic' as aliases for '-Wpedantic' and '-Wno-pedantic' respectively. I don't really like the flags either, but I'm not thrilled about explaining that the solution to negate '-pedantic' is to pass '-Wno-pedantic'. =/ (and yes, I would expect '-pedantic-errors' to expand to '-Wpedantic -Werror=pedantic', and '-no-pedantic-errors' no expand to '-Wno-pedantic -Wno-error=pedantic') Yuck. Yay for commandline legacy... =/
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
