carlosgalvezp added a comment.
A thought came to mind - since we are doing workarounds anyway, would it be
easier to ask people to simply add `-clang-diagnostic*` to the `Checks` in
their config file? It's fair to assume they will get those warnings when
compiling the code. I feel the more workarounds we add in the code the harder
it will be to clean it up later :)
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ExpandModularHeadersPPCallbacks.cpp:75
+ Diags(new DiagnosticIDs,
+ new DiagnosticOptions(Compiler.getDiagnosticOpts()),
new ForwardingDiagnosticConsumer(Compiler.getDiagnosticClient())),
----------------
When downloading your patch, this seems to not be needed to make the tests
pass, should it be removed?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ExpandModularHeadersPPCallbacks.cpp:83
Diags.setSourceManager(&Sources);
+ ProcessWarningOptions(Diags, Compiler.getDiagnosticOpts());
----------------
PiotrZSL wrote:
> carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > A bit unclear to me why we should add this line here, grepping for this
> > function in the repo I only find hits in the `clang` folder. How come it's
> > not needed in other places?
> We create here new Preprocessor (line 96) and new DiagEngine (line 74), when
> C++20/Modules are enabled this class is register as an second Preprocessor
> and both are (+-) executed.
> Unfortunately when we pass `-Wno-macro-redefined` it's pass only to original
> DiagEngine, and we run into situation when warning is suppressed by first
> DiagEngine, but not by second that is used by second Preprocessor.
>
> Passing DiagnosticOptions alone to DiagEngine looks to be insufficient, as
> it's does not apply settings, only calling this function apply them.
> (somehow).
> This is gray area for me.
>
> More about problem here:
> https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-expand-modular-headers-ppcallbacks-problem-in-c-20/71628
Thanks for the explanation! I'm not sure what the best way forward is. Would it
make sense to add some `TODO` or `FIXME` comment to further investigate in the
future if we want that line of code ?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D156056/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D156056
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
