[cfe-dev] proposal: every warning should have a -W flag

[Ted Kremenek]

On Aug 9, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Aaron Ballman wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> This, of course, is predicated on the thought that having individual
>>>> warning numbers is useful to the majority of people.  From personal
>>>> experience, I like having a warning number because it makes it easier
>>>> to Google for others who've had the same issue.  Most diagnostics
>>>> contain source-specific information, and so Google searches become a
>>>> guessing game of what keywords are important.  YMMV
>>> 
>>> But yes, this is the selling point for having numbered diagnostics.
>> 
>> This is the selling point of having a unique searchable name. It doesn't have to be an otherwise-meaningless number.
> 
> Definitely agreed.  I think the hard part is the uniqueness of the
> names.  You don't run into that with meaningless numbers.  But as was
> pointed out, suppressing random numbers in code isn't exactly the best
> thing ever either.  So in that regard, unique names are definitely
> preferred.

All of our diagnostics have unique tablegen entries, so getting unique names for -W flags might not be that hard.  When one looks at the .td files, many of the diagnostic names directly correspond to the -W flag.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20110809/35934655/attachment.html>