On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Can definitely see some use in this "build my large project and let me know if I failed to vectorize anything immediately". -eric _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
