On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:43 PM Ilya Biryukov via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> ilya-biryukov added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51747#1229066, @sammccall wrote: > > > A few thoughts here: > > > > - does CDB describe user or project preferences? unclear. > > > Agree, it's a mix, defaults are from the project but users can add extra > flags. > > > - "show this warning for code I build" is a higher bar than "show this > warning for code I edit". So CDB probably enables too few warnings. > > - Some warnings play well with -Werror (like uninit warnings), some > don't (like deprecated). -Werror projects often disable interesting > warnings. > > Agreed, editors are different from build. > > > I'm not sure we should strictly follow the CDB, but the bar to override > it should probably be high. > > WDYT in the long term about a more general mechanism (to allow users > override compiler or warning flags at the clangd level? > So that even if clangd is opinionated about the default warnings it > enables, users have an option to override according to their preferences. > Yeah, I can see making "extra clang flags" a clangd flag (at some point we really need .clangd config file or something...) The scary thing about the extra flags is how they interact with driver mode (clang-cl vs clang), but maybe that's the user's problem. > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51747#1230420, @kadircet wrote: > > > if user wants to see all diagnostics as a list suddenly they will get > deprecations in that list as well :(. > > > Yeah, some level of noise is probably inevitable. > > > Repository: > rCTE Clang Tools Extra > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D51747 > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
