On 08/01/2014 04:33, Alp Toker wrote:
On 08/01/2014 04:21, Argyrios Kyrtzidis wrote:
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.
PR18327 reports a valid corner-case bug in the way a very small number
(around 8 in total) diagnostics are upgraded from warnings/extensions
to errors, and then were forgetting to downgrade them back to warnings
as all the other diagnostics are seen. So it's just an implementation
detail that was leaking and manifesting as errors in a context where
it should have been impossible.
I should add that the upgrade/downgrade terminology is only one way of
looking at it. One of Richard's original suggestions, to have a
maxSystemHeader level would also achieve the same thing (and possibly be
more accurate with user-specified -Werror levels, but I feel that's an
additional feature at this point).
Alp.
Remember that this flag doesn't control the very many
isInSystemHeader() and isInSystemMacro() checks that happen earlier
than the diagnostic machinery. A -fno-system-headers flag to just
disable the whole system header machinery would be separately useful
though, agreed.
Alp.
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
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
