[cfe-commits] Warning flags

[Ahmed Charles]

Right, it doesn't work. Here's a patch without those included, since I
assume getting those to work will require a bit more effort.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Ahmed Charles <ahmedcharles at gmail.com> wrote:
>> it probably only does a subset of what it claims. I'm not sure what a
>> better name would be and I'm certainly not experienced enough to know
>> all of the other command line warnings that are possible.
>>
>> Do you have a recommendation other than having a specific flag for each
>> instance?
>
> That's not really what I was trying to get at.  What I think will
> happen is that we'll end up telling the user that a warning is
> controlled by -Winvalid-commandline-option, but
> -Wno-invalid-commandline-option won't actually turn it off.
>
> -Eli
>
>> From: Eli Friedman
>> Sent: 10/10/2011 5:32 PM
>> To: Ahmed Charles
>> Cc: kremenek at apple.com; cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] Warning flags
>> Does -Wno-invalid-commandline-option actually work?  If not, it seems
>> confusing to advertise it.
>>
>> -Eli
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Ahmed Charles <ahmedcharles at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Here we go.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Ahmed Charles <ahmedcharles at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, I used git, so it's easy to manage lots of small patches, but one
>>>> large one is fine as well. I'll resend later.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>> Do you have one aggregate patch that will make this easier to review?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 1:53 AM, Ahmed Charles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the first few. They have to be applied in order, or the
>>>>>> changes in the test will conflict. And hopefully the naming is
>>>>>> appealing enough. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Ahmed Charles <ahmedcharles at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Ahmed Charles wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm looking into adding flags for the various warnings without them and was
>>>>>>>> wondering what the bar is in terms of test cases? It seems like existing
>>>>>>>> flags don't have explicit test cases and in some cases neither do the
>>>>>>>> warnings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good questions.  These are two separate issues.  It's simply bad that we
>>>>>>>> have warnings that aren't being tested at all (behaviorally).  For those we
>>>>>>>> should continue to add test cases to improve our coverage of the compiler's
>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>> For testing coverage of warning flags, the only thing you could really test
>>>>>>>> from a behavior perspective is whether passing -W/-Wno<warning>
>>>>>>>> enables/disables the warning (or use pragmas that accomplish the same
>>>>>>>> thing).  Many warnings are on by default, so many of the tests would need to
>>>>>>>> go for the "disable warning" route.  We are pretty confident that the
>>>>>>>> general warning suppression/enabling mechanism works (it is well tested), so
>>>>>>>> we only really need to add specific tests like these for warnings where it
>>>>>>>> is clear we want to tease out some warning from a larger class of warnings
>>>>>>>> and have the ability to disable it (e.g., a user explicitly requested this
>>>>>>>> functionality).
>>>>>>>> So, for testing whether or not a warning has a flag, we have
>>>>>>>> test/Misc/warning-flags.c.  Essentially we run diagtool to list all the
>>>>>>>> warnings that are not covered by a flag.  Whenever a warning that was
>>>>>>>> previously not covered by a flag gets a flag, this test needs to be updated
>>>>>>>> (i.e., remove the entry).  That's usually sufficient in my opinion to test
>>>>>>>> that a warning is covered by a flag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, that's what I thought.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ahmed Charles
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <0003-Place-diagnostic-backslash_newline_space-under-the-W.patch><0004-Place-diagnostics-null_in_string-null_in_char-and-nu.patch><0005-Place-renamed-diagnostic-ext_charize_microsoft-under.patch><0007-Place-diagnostic-ext_dollar_in_identifier-under-the-.patch><0008-Place-diagnostics-ext_c99_array_usage-ext_c99_compou.patch><0009-Place-diagnostic-ext_auto_storage_class-under-the-Wa.patch><0010-Place-diagnostics-ext_catch_incomplete_ref-and-ext_c.patch><0011-Place-diagnostics-ext_flexible_array_in_array-and-ex.patch><0012-Place-diagnostic-warn_delete_incomplete-under-the-Wd.patch><0013-Place-diagnostics-warn_c_kext-warn_drv_assuming_mflo.patch><0014-Place-diagnostics-warn_ucn_escape_too_large-and-warn.patch>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ahmed Charles
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>
>>>
>>
>



-- 
Ahmed Charles
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Place-various-warnings-under-new-W-flags.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 13786 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20111011/6cb3c5d0/attachment.obj>