[LLVMdev] [RFC] Add warning capabilities in LLVM.

Eric Christopher echristo at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 10:34:40 PDT 2013

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek
<kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 7/24/2013 11:37 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> How about this: keep the jist of the current API, but drop the
>> "warning"- or "error"-ness of the API.  Instead, the backend just
>> includes an enum value (plus string message for extra data).  The
>> frontend makes the decision of how to render the diagnostic (or not,
>> dropping them is fine) along with how to map them onto warning/error or
>> whatever concepts they use.
> Also, having centralized handling of compiler messages has the advantage
> that it integrates with the mechanism of suppressing specific messages, or
> changing their severity.  For example, a user may want to consider all
> warnings as errors, except a few specific examples, which would be
> suppressed.

This is why the front end/caller into the backend should handle the
actual diagnostic since it will have that knowledge and why we're
working on it from that perspective.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list