rsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23284#534919, @anemet wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23284#534879, @rsmith wrote: > > > I think this should not be an -R option at all; like -W flags, the idea is > > for -R to only act as a filter for which diagnostics are shown. This option > > seems much more closely related to options like -fdiagnostics-show-option > > and -fdiagnostics-format=, and so should probably have a > > -fdiagnostics-something name. > > > Sounds fine to me. Any preference from: > > -fdiagnostics-include-hotness-in-remarks > -fpass-diagnostics-with-hotness > -fpass-diagnostics-include-hotness > > > or something else? I think this should start with `-fdiagnostics` to group it with other similar flags. `-fdiagnostics-include-hotness-in-remarks` seems too specific to me -- I could imagine generating warnings from the middle-end including hotness information, not just remarks. How about `-fdiagnostics-show-hotness`? (This would fit nicely with the existing `-fdiagnostics-show-*` flags.) https://reviews.llvm.org/D23284 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
