[LLVMdev] Build Failure

David Blaikie dblaikie at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 12:45:18 PST 2013

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:59 AM,  <dag at cray.com> wrote:
> 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