Add 'remark' diagnostic type in clang

[Chandler Carruth]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de
> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 02:52:55AM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Chandler Carruth <
> chandlerc at google.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I also think that it is ultimately a mistake to re-use the same
> > > commandline
> > > > syntax for remarks. While I'd rather re-use all the infrastructure,
> I'd
> > > > rather separate these into a different spelling eventually.
> > >
> > > +1.  Our current logic around -W* flags is already complex enough (to
> > > understand -- both for users and developers, to extend and to
> > > maintain), and overloading the meaning of -W* for remarks will only
> > > make it even more complex, and possibly confusing as well (it is well
> > > established that -W* flags enable warnings).
> >
> >
> > Ya know, -R* flags don't appear to be in use in the GCC commandline at
> all.
> > I'm liking the idea of taking over that capital letter for
> remarks-related
> > flags more.
>
> Please don't. It is a linker flag that has historically often been
> passed without -Wl to gcc.


GCC has rejected this flag since at least GCC 4.5, the oldest version I
have lying around to test with. Clearly this syntax has long since gone
away in GCC, and I think it is entirely reasonable for it to not work with
Clang.

We don't even come *close* to supporting all of the flags GCC accepts
today, much less those it started rejecting over four years ago.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140228/1d0f107b/attachment.html>