alexfh added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528#311053, @jroelofs wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528#311019, @alexfh wrote: > > > Jonathan, can you explain what specific use case does this patch address? > > Why one severity level of native clang-tidy warnings (the current > > situation) is not enough, and two levels are enough? > > > I have out-of-tree checkers for a very strange out-of-tree target. Some of > the checks are on the level of "this should break the build because it cannot > possibly work on this target" and others on the level of "tell me about it, > but don't force me to fix it". All of these checks are things that don't even > remotely apply to other targets. Thank you for the explanation. One more question: do you need to define Werrors differently in different directories? > If you're wondering why I haven't hacked up Clang's sema to enforce these > constraints, see again: out-of-tree backend... maintaining OOT changes there > is expected to be very difficult. No, a sane person wouldn't suggest maintaining a local patch for Clang as a good solution ;) > Clang-tidy however provides a very nice framework where they can be kept > neatly off to the side, away from most of the merge hassles. It's one of the goals of clang-tidy to provide an easy way to maintain out-of-tree checks. > It'd be nice not to have to run clang-tidy twice & parse its output in order > to achieve all of that, hence this patch. Agreed, I want to ensure though, that this is the right approach. In particular, I wonder whether a way to assign labels or severities to clang-tidy diagnostics would be better. Another question is whether we can reuse something from the Clang diagnostic subsystem to map warning levels. http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
