r207975 - Add -Wmodule-build to make it easy to see when modules are (re)built

[Ben Langmuir]

On May 7, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Ben Langmuir <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote:

> 
> On May 7, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/05/2014 23:13, Ben Langmuir wrote:
>>> 
>>> On May 6, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 05/05/2014 22:07, Ben Langmuir wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 5, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Ben Langmuir <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree in principle, but I was under the impression remark wasn’t fully baked for clang diagnostics yet.  For example, the commit message says:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This patch is by intention minimal in terms of parameter handling. More
>>>>>>> experience and more discussions will most likely lead to further enhancements
>>>>>>> in the parameter handling.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> And indeed, I gave it a spin and immediately noticed that it prints out [ -Rmodule-build ] in the diagnostics, which is actively misleading when -R is not a supported diagnostic option spelling.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yeah, we don't support the command-line interface for it yet, but that should be straightforward. That burden has basically been deferred to the first "lucky" person who wants to add a remark. Looks like that might be you? :)
>>>> 
>>>> I did not want to make the impression to avoid the work here.
>>>> 
>>>>> Adding Tobias who wrote the commit message I’m interpreting :)
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>>> I took “more experience and more discussions” to mean we didn’t know what we wanted yet.  If my interpretation is incorrect, and it really is just a matter of wiring up -R like a simplified* -W, then I agree that it should be straightforward to implement
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, your interpretation is right. At that point, the idea of remarks
>>>> themselves was rather clear and already tested in Polly, but for the command line interface there where different proposals that where mostly discussed in the white. The idea was to get the basic infrastructure in place and then use discussions around upcoming remarks (vectorizer and inliner were the most likely ones) to drive the design of the command lines.
>>>> 
>>>> Almost immediately after I committed these patches, Diego stepped up to work on the inliner and vectorizer remarks and for those the
>>>> command line options -Rpass=passname e.g., -Rpass=inline have been
>>>> chosen. With your change, we now seem to have another complimentary
>>>> use-case for remarks. That is great.
>>>> 
>>>>> * By simplified, I mean that I assume we don’t want all of the special case -W options like everything, error, system-headers ...
>>>> 
>>>> From what I learned from the previous remark discussions I think the a simplified -R option is really the way to go. Am I right, that for
>>>> your remark, using a flag -Rmodule-build would be what you would
>>>> like to use?
>>> 
>>> I don’t really have an opinion about what the spelling ought to be.  -Rmodule-build would be fine with me, but so is -Wmodule-build if we were consistent.
>> 
>> OK. Then let's go for -Rmodule-build. That seems better in line to what Diego introduced. Would you like to give it a shot?
> 
> Not particularly ;-)  It would also be a while before I would have time to look at this.

On reflection it seemed prudent to turn ‘module-build’ into a remark even though the spelling will still be -Wmodule-build for now (done in r208367).

This raised another question: should -Weverything turn on remarks, or not? I’m on the fence.

Ben

> 
> Be
> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Tobias
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140508/a92751c4/attachment.html>