[cfe-dev] Does `#pragma GCC diagnostic warning` intentionally win over -Werror?

[James Y Knight via cfe-dev]

I don't think we should have such a flag. The explicit intent of '#pragma
gcc diagnostic warning' is to allow downgrading an error to a warning,
while still allowing it to be emitted.

Perhaps a new value for pragma diagnostic which emits an upgradeable
warning would be reasonable.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 9:56 AM Nico Weber via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Re "intentional?", it matches gcc which explicitly documents on
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Diagnostic-Pragmas.html that the
> pragma wins over -Werror.
>
> Does anyone know if there's a flag that says "I want all warnings to be
> errors, not just most of them"?
>
> If there isn't one yet, what would be a good UI for that?
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:11 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> Consider:
>>
>> $ cat test.cc
>> #pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-Wsign-compare"
>>
>> bool f(int a, unsigned b) {
>>   return a != b;
>> }
>> $ out/gn/bin/clang -c test.cc -Werror
>> test.cc:4:12: warning: comparison of integers of different signs: 'int'
>> and 'unsigned int' [-Wsign-compare]
>>   return a != b;
>>          ~ ^  ~
>> 1 warning generated.
>>
>>
>> I found it surprising that this is emitted as a warning, not as an error.
>> If this is intentional, is there some other way to say "I want my compiler
>> warnings to always be errors"?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nico
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20190124/cb5c7b42/attachment.html>