On Jan 7, 2014, at 7:56 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 08/01/2014 01:48, Argyrios Kyrtzidis wrote: >> On Jan 6, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> One view on this is simply: -Wsystem-headers means "don't give system >>> headers special treatment when emitting diagnostics”. >> >> This is it exactly. “Treat all headers like normal headers" > > We don't have a flag to treat all headers as normal headers at the moment. > It'd be very simple to implement compared to -Wsystem-headers which somewhat > intricate.
Could you elaborate, AFAICT '-Wsystem-headers' is treated specially, it's outside the diagnostic group machinery, and acts essentially as a flag. If you'd like to have something like '-fwarn-on-system-headers' or something instead, that's another discussion, but as far as the PR is concerned I don't see why we need to change what -Wsystem-headers is currently doing. > > Alp. > >> >>> That would seem to make perfect sense to people developing system headers, >>> and is our current behavior. What is the use case that leads to enabling >>> -Wsystem-headers but not wanting that to lead to errors? PR18327 doesn't >>> make that obvious. >> >> Not sure I’m following that report, if one doesn’t like that that diagnostic >> is by default mapped to an error, maybe map it to a warning on the >> command-line or discuss whether it should not be mapped to error by default ? >> I don’t see a need to complicate what -Wsystem-headers does. >> > > -- > http://www.nuanti.com > the browser experts > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
