On Jun 17, 2013, at 12:33 , Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Jun 16, 2013, at 17:01 , Richard Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> +// FIXME: Why are DeprecatedImplementations and DeprecatedWritableStr >> +// not in this group? >> +def Deprecated : DiagGroup<"deprecated", [DeprecatedDeclarations, >> + DeprecatedRegister]>, >> >> >> As I understand it, because -Wdeprecated is for user deprecations (i.e. >> __attribute__((deprecated))), not language deprecations. > > That doesn't match our existing practice, which is somewhat > inconsistent but seems to be closer to using -Wdeprecated-declarations > for user deprecations, and -Wdeprecated for all deprecations. > Specifically, prior to my changes: > > -Wdeprecated contained: > -Wdeprecated-declarations > access declarations > bool increment > __vector long > deprecated driver arguments > > -Wdeprecated-declarations contained: > __attribute__((deprecated)) > "maybe deprecated because receiver type is unknown" (???) > use of C-style parameters in objective-C method declarations (???) > > And -Wdeprecated-objc-isa-usage, -Wdeprecated-writable-strings, and > -Wdeprecated-implementations are not part of any other group. > > Maybe we should move those two (???) warnings out of > -Wdeprecated-declarations and into -Wdeprecated? Ah, I didn't notice some of those other bare deprecations. (I just looked in DiagnosticSemaKinds.) I guess I don't care what we do as long as user deprecations are separate from language deprecations, whether that's introducing another flag for those under -Wdeprecated-declarations, moving the ??? warnings up to -Wdeprecated, or moving the language deprecations out of -Wdeprecated. I can see the other deprecation-related warnings being moved under -Wdeprecated in the first two cases. Jordan
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
