On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > I don't think it should: -Weverything is for people who want "tell me anything that might possibly be wrong here", and remarks are not indicating a potential problem. I also think the -W and -R flags should be independent, so even if we want an 'all remarks' mode, it should be called -Reverything.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
