aaron.ballman added a comment. In D122983#3484189 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983#3484189>, @rjmccall wrote:
> IIRC, the reason it works it that way is that "warnings which default to an > error" are really "errors which you can explicitly downgrade to a warning". > Maybe those ought to be different categories, or maybe we ought to just be > telling people to downgrade this specific diagnostic instead of generally > using `-Wno-error`. Thanks for the background John! That seems defensible, but I think we're still in a confused state that we should do something about. A warning which default to an error is not sufficiently warning-like to be disabled via `-w` but isn't sufficiently error-like to be disabled via `-Wno-error`. IMO, one or the other of those options should work with a diagnostic like this. However, for the time being, the advice is to use `-Wno-error=implicit-function-declaration`, which is what's documented in the release note. The commit message had a shorthand suggesting -Wno-error, but my intent was to suggest people narrowly disable the error instead of broadly disable them all. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
