dougsonos wrote: > Hi @dougsonos > > We’re experiencing an unforeseen pain point trying to use rtsan without > function effects, and wanted to ask **how you would feel about making > function effect warnings opt-in rather than opt-out.** > > While users can easily opt in to function effects and not rtsan, the problem > is that they can’t easily opt in to rtsan and not function effects. > > Here’s why: someone wanting to try out rtsan can add the `[[nonblocking]]` > attribute, but this automatically opts them in to function effect warnings. > For users who compile with `-Werror`, this means they will likely be unable > to compile the code they wish to test with rtsan unless they explicitly turn > off function effects warnings with -Wno-function-effects. If they’re not > familiar with function effects they won’t know this, and we’re worried about > an education gap causing them to blame rtsan and give up on it before > realizing they can flick the function effects warnings off. > > By disabling these warnings by default, both tools have the same "activation" > of attribute + compile time flag, and it is equally easy to run either tool > in isolation, or together.
My current understanding is that Clang has groups of warnings like `-Wmost` `-Wall` and `-Wextra` though I haven't seen yet how those work under the hood. My sense is that it would be weird for `-Wall` not to include `-Wfunction-effects`, but that it would be OK for `-Wfunction-effects` not to be enabled by default. I do wonder, though, would it be that difficult to tell users to include `-Wno-function-effects` with `-fsanitize=realtime` (or whatever it is)? Hopefully one of the experienced maintainers will chime in here. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99656 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
