smeenai added a comment. In D152495#4628877 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152495#4628877>, @hans wrote:
> In D152495#4628870 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152495#4628870>, @goncharov > wrote: > >> due to this change we have a enourmous number of new warnings, on the other >> hand -Wunused-variable is a valuable warning. I am not sure what is the >> policy and best practices for warnings but maybe there is a possiblity to >> make a transition period for enabling this type of warning separetely and to >> allow updating existing code? > > The usual policy is to put new warnings behind new flags so users can disable > them selectively. It gets trickier when it's existing warnings getting > enhanced like this. Would it be possible to put this new functionality behind > a flag? Yeah, this has been a recurring issue when existing warnings get enhanced. It's often not feasible to fix all new instances right away, but you don't want to disable or `-Wno-error` the warning either cos then new issues can start creeping in, leaving you with no good options. Maybe we should have a policy around even enhancements to existing warnings always going in their own subgroup, so that we can disable them selectively while not regressing anything? @aaron.ballman, what are your thoughts? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152495/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152495 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
