<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>Issue</th>
<td>
<a href=https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/58264>58264</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Summary</th>
<td>
Documentation of diagnostic flags is overwhelming -- consider categorization/tagging
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Labels</th>
<td>
new issue
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Assignees</th>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Reporter</th>
<td>
vittorioromeo
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<pre>
The official documentation page on "diagnostic flags" (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html) is just an enormous list of warning flags, without any sort of categorization and tagging.
Given that very useful flags like `-Wimplicit-fallthrough` are not enabled in neither `-Wall` or `-Wextra` (trying to fix that with #58263), people need to be able to discover them. Going through 900+ warning flags is not realistic.
I suggest some sort of ranking/categorization/tagging where manual readers will first see the most commonly used/beneficial warning flags, and the more esoteric and niche ones will be at the end.
</pre>
<img width="1px" height="1px" alt="" src="http://email.email.llvm.org/o/eJx1U01v2zAM_TX2hYghfwXOwYd2QYtdhwE70zItq5WlQJKTZr9-lJN1yIbBgWNR1OPj49Pgxmv_fSZw06SlRgOjk-tCNmLUzsIJFe9ZyKpq1KisC1FLmAyqwCEOd3OMp5DVT1n1wj9p0KrCmPNSOK84wHCc-XL8PBy-0USerKRijovJqgPoAG9riIAWyDq_uDWA0RxwE1zQW23V75Jf4KLj7NaUfIXg_JYkMZJyXv-8kUY7QkSl-FyRiWMmnm7vV30mC3HGCGfyV1gDTau5QXPBd4JsL3Y_9HIyrEXcTWhMnL1b1cwbgJ7AusgccTA0grZgidmQv53j7JTm7kv6iB5TgEWK_pqaiA4m_XFjkPrgrbrtqn3NKqTeTuROhosQo3PuQJAqpc9RB-mYNJ-lpYBXt8HduMFBiKx6fpQqiZrIesIkpZYPSnyFsCpFLHFwC33q6NG-M0Ka44OiHLjrCRdul2BBu7JXGHwkH7gXwzJqn_CIEkdYeNgg3bI4azalRwYZyNLdZv_MdRvadpDxKbhInp2WolbLZFBL90JJlrjlkh2LnPpyv2-bUlSizMe-Hg_1AfOoo6H--GBm7vBvEyeZkq7cllkSn92OWduguS_4nwj56k3_6HvF01yHghvmRbL__W938u6NZOSlDmGldBfSxJt87js5dAJrJtyNZXfo2rGZKpyaqRy6rsU6NziQCX3WPvNds3SBDYK_s_aY674SVVUKfup234ii68RB7LFspKyknETWCFpQm8_bmPt-ozSsrHgjki3Cn00MQSt23laO8XHle-b7s46RJXCefeLyjUC_NfALa2ZxZw">