[cfe-commits] [Patch] -Wformat-non-standard: warn about positional arguments (pr12017)

Hans Wennborg hans at chromium.org
Wed Mar 7 10:00:26 PST 2012

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 19:00, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 3:03 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 20:00, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote:
> >> For me the goal of the warning is to warn about non-portable code, not annoy
> >> people.  Format specifiers and format string extensions covered by POSIX are
> >> by definition portable on POSIX-compliant systems.  So I raise the question
> >> of whether or not we should warn about these at all?
> >
> > I agree that a good warning about non-portable code, that could be
> > turned on by default or as part of -Wall, would be the ideal.
> >
> > However, we're not there yet. In the meantime, I think having a
> > warning under -pedantic that warns about non-ISO C format strings
> > makes sense. I agree that it would be extremely annoying to warn about
> > POSIX extensions by default, but under -pedantic I think users would
> > expect to get warnings about these, just as with GCC.
> Ok, I'm fine with this approach (putting under -pedantic), but should we put it under a separate warning group (that is activated by -Wformat-non-standard).  That way people could turn off these warnings if all the care about is POSIX compatibility by still keep the rest of the portability warnings.
> >
> > Maybe the wording of the warnings and the name of the flag could be
> > changed to make this intention more clear. I agree that just saying
> > "non-standard" is a bit vague in the light of some of these features
> > actually being standardized under POSIX.
> I think improving the wording would help quite a bit.  What is "standard" is also a moving target, so saying what the "standard" is might help a great deal (e.g., C99).  It also may just add confusion.  Another way is to have -Wformat-posix-extensions, which is activated by -Wformat-non-standard (as I suggested above), and just have a parenthetical note in the warning that says "POSIX extension".

Attaching a new patch that re-names the warning flag and rewords the
warnings a little bit. Hopefully this makes it much more clear.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: positional-arguments-warning2.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 11945 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120307/fb701c2a/attachment.obj>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list