I have created a phabricator for this: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2430
We can continue the discussion here. On Dec 17, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Quentin Colombet <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Hal, >> >> Thanks for you feedbacks. >> >> On Dec 17, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Hal Finkel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Quentin, >> >> Any reason you did not use phabricator for this patch? >> >> I thought it was trivial enough not to require a phabricator. >> >> >> +def BackendInlineAsm : DiagGroup<"backend-inline-asm">; >> >> +def BackendStackSize : DiagGroup<"backend-stack-size">; >> >> +def BackendPlugin : DiagGroup<"backend-plugin">; >> >> Are these group names user-visible? >> >> I think they are. At least, I get this name when a warning is issued: >> warning: stack size exceeded (168) in main [-Wbackend-stack-size] >> 1 warning generated. >> >> If they are, do we want "backend" in the name? >> >> I do not have any strong opinion on that. >> This prefix makes it clear that these diagnostics are issued by the backend. >> I thought it may be useful to have a naming convention for those. > > At least for built-in diagnostics, inline-asm and stack-size, users > don't really care which part of the compiler produces the diagnostic. > Also, which flag does GCC use for these? We should be compatible if > possible. The stack size more or less matches this warning in GCC: -Wframe-larger-than=<limit> Though we do not have a way to reproduce that behavior in clang at the moment, see the Missing Points. For inline asm, I do not know what GCC has. -Quentin > > Dmitri > > -- > main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if > (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>*/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
