dblaikie added a comment. In D158137#4597491 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158137#4597491>, @dexonsmith wrote:
> In D158137#4597009 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158137#4597009>, @MaskRay wrote: > >> In D158137#4596948 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158137#4596948>, @dexonsmith >> wrote: >> >>> Can you explain the downside of leaving behind an alias? >> >> Two minor ones. (a) Existing `-Wno-overriding-t-option` will not notice that >> they need to migrate and (b) Clang has accrued tiny tech debt. >> If we eventually remove `-Wno-overriding-t-option` for tidiness, we will >> have to break `-Werror -Wno-overriding-t-option` users. > > I guess it's not clear to me we'd need to remove the alias. The usual policy > (I think?) is that clang driver options don't disappear. It seems like a > small piece of debt to maintain the extra alias in this case, and if it's > kept, then users don't actually need to migrate. And then you can feel safe > updating Darwin.cpp as well. +1 to this, FWIW - I wouldn't consider it technical debt to keep a compatible warning flag name that's been around for a decade & isn't a name we're trying to free up for some other use or because it causes any great confusion, etc. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D158137/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D158137 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
