On 02/26/2014 10:19 PM, Chris Lattner 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.
Good. I will submit patches accordingly.
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.
Good point. I will prepare the above patches such that they reuse the
existing infrastructure. If we really see a need for further
adjustments, we can do this incrementally.
Cheers,
Tobias
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
