On Feb 26, 2014, at 2:22 AM, Tobias Grosser <[email protected]> wrote: > 2) Adding the new severity level / the name of the diagnostic > > Only small issues have been found in the patch. All of them have been > addressed. The last open issues was the name of the diagnostic. Richard > proposed 'info' or 'remark'. Chris and Eric prefer to call the severity > 'info', in case there is no prior art. However, Alexander and Arthur > mentioned prior art for 'remark' in both icc and edg. Also the comment from > Arthur sounds right: > > I don't know of any compiler that uses the term "informative". > Besides, that's redundant; *all* compiler diagnostics are purely > "informative" by definition. The variable here is //severity//: > fatal-error, recoverable-error, warning, remark, silent. > > I personally preferred 'info' first, but now came to the conclusion > that 'remark' is the better option, except someone sees strong reasons to > ignore the prior art.
“remark” is fine with me. > 3) How to enable 'remarks' > > We need a way to enable 'remark' diagnostics. Quentin proposed to go > for an approach similar to the warning flags. Where we control remarks > with '-Rvector', '-Rloop-vector', ... > > I will read a little bit through the existing option system to better > understand what it is doing, possibly adding documentation / cleanups on my > way. I will come back with a proposal here. It’s a bit odd, but since these are diagnostics, why not use the existing -W flags? You should be able to -Werror one of these, control them with #pragma clang diagnostics, etc. It doesn’t seem like we need more complexity in this space. -Chris _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
