aaron.ballman added a comment. In D142123#4066447 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142123#4066447>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D142123#4066351 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142123#4066351>, @njames93 > wrote: > >> Given the fact its non-standard, it has caveats and peoples eagerness to >> blindly enable all checks (or all checks from a module). >> I feel this check would likely cause more harm than good. > > Shall we remove abseil checks? > Shall we remove libc++-specific checks? > Shall we remove webkit checks? > Shall we remove backwards-compatibility checks? > > Nothing is ever useful for everyone. Much like `-Weverything`, > enabling all checks comes with an explcit caveat that > one needs to disable the checks that are not applicable for the codebase. > > +1 to having this check. We're not asking for it to be useful to everyone; we are asking for justification for the current proposed form because there are problems with what's proposed. We're trying to figure out what the correct approach is (fwiw, I'd be opposed to what's proposed as-is but would be fine with a tweaked proposal). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142123/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142123 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
