On May 7, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Tobias Grosser <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 06/05/2014 23:13, Ben Langmuir wrote: >> >> 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. > > OK. Then let's go for -Rmodule-build. That seems better in line to what Diego > introduced. Would you like to give it a shot? Not particularly ;-) It would also be a while before I would have time to look at this. Be > > Cheers, > Tobias _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
