[llvm-dev] Proposal to add preprocessor warning for unused command line macros
Mats Bengtsson via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue May 7 00:13:25 PDT 2019
To not unnecessarily produce a diagnostic for macros that are project
wide, my proposal suggest that the warning option be positional. By
that I mean that macros specified on the command line before the
warning option will not produce a diagnostic regardless if they are
used or not in the source code file. Only those macros appearing after
the warning option are subject to produce a diagnostic if not used at
See the last example in my original post.
It is precisely because you want to be able to determine if a macro is
actually used, and if so where it is used, that I am proposing this
Note that I have copied the original post over to cfe-dev, so please
continue posting there if you have comments and questions.
Link to cfe-dev post:
Den mån 6 maj 2019 kl 22:33 skrev David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>:
> My concern would be that most build systems have their command line
> arguments built up for the whole project - (eg: I want the 32 bit API
> to this library, so I add -DFOO_LIB_32 to my project command line
> arguments). The specific compilations that use that macro vary over
> time, depending on which parts of the project use the library (maybe I
> start with the usage in one source, then refactor it into anotehr
> file, etc).
> So I'm not sure warning on unused would suit - thinking of them sort
> of like a generic header file that all the code includes - and we
> can't warn about the unused macros in such a header because maybe in
> one situation it's included only a fraction of its macros are used.
> (same as other unused entities in headers/on the command line).
> - Dave
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:26 PM Mats Bengtsson via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > This is a proposal for either adding a new, or updating an existing
> > command line option such that a diagnostic can optionally be produced
> > for unused -D macros.
> > Long-lived large projects with thousands of files and many
> > contributors have a tendency to accumulate build options over time. As
> > time passes some build options like macros become replaced, obsolete,
> > or simply no longer used.
> > At the same time it is becoming more and more common that build
> > environments such as Bazel are used to try to minimize the build
> > effort and more importantly speed up builds. Build acceleration tools
> > commonly use the build options, and among them macros, to determine if
> > the output from a build is equivalent or not with a later build of the
> > same compilation unit.
> > The commands ...
> > $ clang -DFOO example.c
> > .. and ...
> > $ clang -DBAR example.c
> > ... produce 100% identical output, since neither macro FOO nor BAR
> > affect the compilation unit. However, the build acceleration tools
> > that do not run the preprocessor will not detect that the input to the
> > compilation stage is identical and so will treat the output as unequal
> > and run the build two times, when once would have been sufficient.
> > There are two command line options that at present do not produce a
> > diagnostic for an unused command line macro, but which might be
> > expanded to do this task also;
> > -Wunused-macros
> > Produces diagnostic only for macros defined in the main source code
> > file that are not subsequenty used. No diagnostic for command line
> > macros, and no diagnostic for macros defined in header files included
> > by the source code file.
> > -Wunused-command-line-argument
> > Produces diagnostic for command line arguments that are not
> > applicable. But there is no diagnostic for command line macros that
> > are not used.
> > An alternative might be to add a specific option for use by the
> > preprocessor to produce a diagnostic for macros defined on the command
> > line, but not used by the source code file. This is my proposed named
> > for such an option;
> > -Wunused-command-line-macros
> > It is more likely than not that some of the command line macros are
> > intended to be consumed only by header files included by the source
> > code file, and not used at all in the source code itself. So the
> > option should be be implemented such that only macros occurring on the
> > command line >after< the option are subject to produce a diagnostic,
> > if not used. So for example;
> > $ clang -DFOO -Wunused-command-line-macros -DBAR example.c
> > ... if we assume the "example.c" source code file uses neither of the
> > two macros FOO and BAR, a diagnostic will only be produced for BAR,
> > and none for FOO.
> > Is this a reasonable proposal? Comments?
> > An alternate solution might be for the preprocessor to dump out a list
> > of macros it has seen during processing. The build acceleration tools
> > can then hoover up this information in order to make more informed
> > decisions on which build options actually have an effect on the
> > produced output.
> > Thank you for your attention,
> > Mats Bengtsson
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
More information about the llvm-dev