On May 7, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. On reflection it seemed prudent to turn ‘module-build’ into a remark even though the spelling will still be -Wmodule-build for now (done in r208367). This raised another question: should -Weverything turn on remarks, or not? I’m on the fence. Ben > > Be > >> >> Cheers, >> Tobias > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
