aaron.ballman added a comment. In D150226#4408980 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150226#4408980>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D150226#4408563 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150226#4408563>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> In D150226#4408381 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150226#4408381>, >> @aaron.ballman wrote: >> >>> In D150226#4404808 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150226#4404808>, @rupprecht >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I suppose including this warning in `ShowInSystemHeader` with your diff >>>> above would be a good first step anyway, right? If we're about to make it >>>> a hard error anyway, then making it a `ShowInSystemHeader` error first >>>> would ease that transition. >>> >>> Yes and no. >>> >>> If we're going to turn something into a hard error, letting folks >>> implementing system headers know about it is important, so from that >>> perspective, it makes sense to enable the diagnostic in system headers. >>> However, *users* have no choice in their system headers (oftentimes) which >>> makes the diagnostic unactionable for them as they're not going to (and >>> shouldn't have to) modify system headers, so from that perspective, >>> enabling the diagnostic in a system header introduces friction. >>> >>> If this diagnostic is showing up in system headers, I think we would likely >>> need to consider adding a compatibility hack to allow Clang to still >>> consume that system header while erroring when outside of that system >>> header (we've done this before to keep STL implementations working, for >>> example). Between this need and the friction it causes users to have an >>> unactionable diagnostic, I think we probably should not enable >>> `ShowInSystemHeader`. >> >> It seems to me that if our concern is breaking system headers, we need to do >> that with better testing. Some sort of 'diagnostic group' for "This is >> going to become an error *SOON*" mixed with us/vendors running that on >> platforms we consider significant enough to not break. But just diagnosing >> on arbitrary users with no choice on how to fix the headers doesn't seem >> appropriate. > > I think that's the request here: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/63180 +1, I think that request is a reasonable idea to help maintainers of system headers. It sounds like we're in agreement that we should not enable `ShowInSystemHeaders` for this, but it's not clear whether we've got agreement yet that we can land this change right now. I think it's acceptable to kick the can down the road by another release or so if we feel we need to, but there is a hard stop to that at some point (some folks won't fix their code until they're forced to do so, and there's not much we can do about those cases). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150226/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150226 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
