VitaNuo wrote: > I am not super comfortable with enabling the diagnostic by default because > it's not something the user can do anything about aside from disable the > diagnostic (which means they'll report one issue and probably never report > another again because they disabled the warning due to chattiness) and I > don't think we want to train users to ignore diagnostics or force them to > turn off low-value ones. However, what about this as a compromise: we enable > the diagnostic without a diagnostic group (so it cannot be disabled) in all > builds up to the release candidate, and then we fully disable it for the > actual releases? This way, early adopters can help us find issues, but we're > not inflicting any pain on the general public once we release.
> (FWIW, I think this is something that should have an RFC for wider community > buy-in given the effects.) Sounds good, I'll try to summarize this discussion as an RFC. > collect issues that we hit in LLVM tests (there's plenty AFAIU) and also from > real projects (we can run with the warning internally over Google's codebase > to get a representative sample). It might be a good idea to do this first, in order to collect more data for an RFC and the corresponding discussion. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111391 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
