On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > 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'. =/
Yes, makes sense to me. -Chris
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
