lebedev.ri added a comment. In D142123#4066460 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142123#4066460>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D142123#4066447 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142123#4066447>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > >> In D142123#4066351 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142123#4066351>, @njames93 >> wrote: >> >>> Given the fact its non-standard, it has caveats and peoples eagerness to >>> blindly enable all checks (or all checks from a module). >>> I feel this check would likely cause more harm than good. >> >> Shall we remove abseil checks? >> Shall we remove libc++-specific checks? >> Shall we remove webkit checks? >> Shall we remove backwards-compatibility checks? >> >> Nothing is ever useful for everyone. Much like `-Weverything`, >> enabling all checks comes with an explcit caveat that >> one needs to disable the checks that are not applicable for the codebase. >> >> +1 to having this check. > > We're not asking for it to be useful to everyone; we are asking for > justification for the current proposed form because there are problems with > what's proposed. We're trying to figure out what the correct approach is > (fwiw, I'd be opposed to what's proposed as-is but would be fine with a > tweaked proposal). Thanks! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142123/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142123 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
