[cfe-commits] r141053 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticDriverKinds.td lib/Driver/Tools.cpp

[David Blaikie]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote:

> On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:27 AM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
> Could/should we support -Wno-* by default anyway? I mean if we don't
> have the warning it is certainly not on.
> (on the other hand, as a user I wouldn't mind knowing if I'm passing
> useless flags. Except when I'm trying to use multiple compilers and
> turn something off in one which isn't present in the other. Minor
> convenience to have that silently(ish) accepted on the no supporting
> compiler)
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> Numerous people have requested that all warnings can be placed under a -W
> flag, and allow them to selectively turn them on or off.  I'll try and
> summarize why I think this is a critical feature.
>

Oh, sorry - I think I wasn't clear. I believe I understand & agree with the
motivation (& if I get a chance I'll have a go & providing some patches to
group the ungrouped warnings to help get that 304 down to zero). My point
was (& it's possible this is the existing behavior, I don't have access to
clang right now to test) to counter Bob's point (that he wouldn't want to
break users who were disabling (-Wno-blah) the warning when the warning was
removed):

Could we just silently allow users to pass -Wno-foo & if we don't have a
warning called 'foo' we could just silently swallow this flag & ignore it?
Since we don't support the 'foo' warning anyway, we can trivially support
-Wno-foo.

- David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20111004/186fb49d/attachment.html>