[LLVMdev] [RFC] Add warning capabilities in LLVM.

[Krzysztof Parzyszek]

On 7/24/2013 11:37 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> How about this: keep the jist of the current API, but drop the
> "warning"- or "error"-ness of the API.  Instead, the backend just
> includes an enum value (plus string message for extra data).  The
> frontend makes the decision of how to render the diagnostic (or not,
> dropping them is fine) along with how to map them onto warning/error or
> whatever concepts they use.

Also, having centralized handling of compiler messages has the advantage 
that it integrates with the mechanism of suppressing specific messages, 
or changing their severity.  For example, a user may want to consider 
all warnings as errors, except a few specific examples, which would be 
suppressed.

-K

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation