On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > Agreed, but I'd like the -W solution to be present first before adding -no-pendantic and friends.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
