On May 6, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Tobias Grosser <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/05/2014 22:07, Ben Langmuir wrote: >> >> On May 5, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Richard, >>> >>> I agree in principle, but I was under the impression remark wasn’t fully >>> baked for clang diagnostics yet. For example, the commit message says: >>> >>>> This patch is by intention minimal in terms of parameter handling. More >>>> experience and more discussions will most likely lead to further >>>> enhancements >>>> in the parameter handling. >> > > >>> And indeed, I gave it a spin and immediately noticed that it prints out [ >>> -Rmodule-build ] in the diagnostics, which is actively misleading when -R >>> is not a supported diagnostic option spelling. >>> >>> Yeah, we don't support the command-line interface for it yet, but that >>> should be straightforward. That burden has basically been deferred to the >>> first "lucky" person who wants to add a remark. Looks like that might be >>> you? :) > > I did not want to make the impression to avoid the work here. > >> Adding Tobias who wrote the commit message I’m interpreting :) > > Thanks. > >> I took “more experience and more discussions” to mean we didn’t know what we >> wanted yet. If my interpretation is incorrect, and it really is just a >> matter of wiring up -R like a simplified* -W, then I agree that it should be >> straightforward to implement > > Yes, your interpretation is right. At that point, the idea of remarks > themselves was rather clear and already tested in Polly, but for the command > line interface there where different proposals that where mostly discussed in > the white. The idea was to get the basic infrastructure in place and then use > discussions around upcoming remarks (vectorizer and inliner were the most > likely ones) to drive the design of the command lines. > > Almost immediately after I committed these patches, Diego stepped up to work > on the inliner and vectorizer remarks and for those the > command line options -Rpass=passname e.g., -Rpass=inline have been > chosen. With your change, we now seem to have another complimentary > use-case for remarks. That is great. > >> * By simplified, I mean that I assume we don’t want all of the special case >> -W options like everything, error, system-headers ... > > From what I learned from the previous remark discussions I think the a > simplified -R option is really the way to go. Am I right, that for > your remark, using a flag -Rmodule-build would be what you would > like to use? I don’t really have an opinion about what the spelling ought to be. -Rmodule-build would be fine with me, but so is -Wmodule-build if we were consistent. > > I already looked previously into how to implement the -R flags best. > As a first step, independent on decisions about the actual flags, > I implemented a patch that untangles the tblgen stuff for the > diagnostics. I reposted it under '[patch] tblgen: Modularize the diagnostic > emitter'. Maybe you would like to have a look. > Sure. > Cheers, > Tobias _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
