dblaikie added a comment. In D158137#4599481 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158137#4599481>, @MaskRay wrote:
> In D158137#4599461 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158137#4599461>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> 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. > > I think my previous comment has answered this. > Think: every Clang release may emit some new warnings. `-Werror` users has > actually provided a promise that they will fix reasonable toolchain changes. > Toolchain contributors check how disruptive a change will be, but cannot > promise that we never emit new warnings. > In this case, `overriding-t-options` seems a fairly rare and LLVM/Clang side > has far too many other fp-model/fast-math changes to make "whether we will > get a new warning" a fairly minor issue. > I am unfamiliar with Darwin.cpp though. If it turns out that want to disable > the warning even with `-Wno-overriding-t-option`, we can add a workaround > specific to Darwin.cpp, but not to fp-model/Tc. Sure, I understand that we can break these things - like if we totally remove a warning, I wouldn't be averse to removing the flag/not leaving it there for backwards "compatibility" (when it's misleading/doesn't actually trigger the warning, for instance). But in this case it seems like we're keeping the functionality, decided on a better name, but it seems pretty harmless and somewhat beneficial to keep the old name around. 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
