[PATCH] D44297: [lld-link] For suppressible warnings, print the suppressing flag.

[Rui Ueyama via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ruiu added inline comments.


================
Comment at: COFF/Driver.cpp:809
       if (Config->WarnMissingOrderSymbol)
-        warn("/order:" + Arg + ": missing symbol: " + S);
+        warn("/order:" + Arg + ": missing symbol: " + S + " [no /ignore:4037]");
     }
----------------
thakis wrote:
> hans wrote:
> > Would it be helpful to make warn() take an optional warning number and tweak the message accordingly?
> > 
> > "no /ignore:1234" is a bit terse for my taste. How about "suppress with /ignore:1234" or "pass /ignore:1234 to suppress" or something similar?
> That's too word for me. I had "[/ignore:1245 to ignore]" but didn't like the redundant "ignore". I like the terse message, it's similar to how clang prints warning flags.
> 
> Making warn() responsible for this makes sense once we have more than 2 uses. For now, this seems ok to me.
"[no /ignore:4217]" is repeated a few times in this patch indeed, but I don't think that is too many to add a new parameter to warn(). I'm fine with what you did in this patch.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D44297