aaron.ballman added a comment. In D133425#3780579 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133425#3780579>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Yeah, that might be a way forward - splitting the warning in two - have one level that's the current even-in-system-headers behavior, then a subset that's the GCC-behavior. (probably the current flag name should match the GCC behavior, as much as that's a break in compatibility with previous-clang - but I could see the counterargument that we should keep the name/semantics matching previous clang and add a separate GCC-incompatible name for the GCC-compatible behavior... ) I've been thinking on this a bit, and I think this is the best way forward. I don't have a strong opinion on whether we retain the behavior we had here or not. This diagnostic is currently ignored by default, so it's unlikely to have significant use in the wild. Any preference from the peanut gallery? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133425/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133425 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
