[LLVMdev] Build Failure

dag at cray.com dag at cray.com
Thu Jan 3 11:59:05 PST 2013

David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> writes:

>>> Selfhost clang. Whenever we get a warning from Clang we either fix
>>> Clang or fix the build quite quickly.
>> Not possible,
> Out of curiosity - why not? (sure, I realize everyone has internal
> build systems, etc, that they're ultimately integrating LLVM into -
> but that doesn't mean you have to do your development there (Google
> has an internal build system & I could do my development there, but I
> tend to develop with an upstream-style CMake+Ninja (& selfhosting)
> setup))

We use gcc to build our whole compiler and we develop, test and release
all using the same build process so that things are consistent.  In the
past we've been burned when developers use a different process and don't
see bugs that testers see.

>>> Pragmas: maybe, but it would probably muddy the waters a fair bit.
>>> Depends how noisy any given warning is - I suspect -Wuninitialized
>>> wouldn't meet the bar for pragma suppressions (there would be too many
>>> suppressions) & should just be disabled in the build system when using
>>> GCC. We can rely on Clang's warnings to catch things that can be
>>> caught reliably.
>> I really dislike disabling warnings if we can suppress them in specific
>> cases.
> It just depends how many cases there are. If it becomes a very common
> suppression the pragmas will rather get in the way of working with the
> code.

How about I prepare patches with the pragmas and then folks can review
them and see how they feel.  Does that sound reasonable?


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list