On Jan 23, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Quentin Colombet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ping? >> >> @Dmitri Gribenko >> The name of the added warning is clearly debatable and in particular I do >> not have on strong opinion on them (especially regarding the backend- >> prefix). >> I did not find any equivalent for the inline-asm diagnostic in GCC, thus >> there is nothing to match here AFAICT. > > I see. I still don't see a reason to include 'backend' in the group > name in this particular case. Alright, I’ll update accordingly. > >> Regarding the stack-size thing, the closest thing in GCC is >> frame-larger-than. Since we cannot, AFAIK, set an integer value to a warning >> in clang, we cannot match this for now. > > We can, but not easily -- there is already support in > include/clang/Driver/Options.td, but we need support in option parser, > and maybe elsewhere in the diagnostic subsystem. FWIW, I think it is > better to try to be compatible in this case. Agree. Would you think it would be reasonable to name this group frame-large-than for now and add the parsing support (as well as the plumbing to spread the size limit to the backend) in a subsequent commit? > > About the "backend-plugin", I think the name reflects the diagnostic > as good as we can. Good! Thanks for your feedbacks, -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
