On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:19 AM Roman Lebedev via Phabricator via cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> lebedev.ri added a comment. > > How does this relate to the gcc behavior? > I suspect not everyone would want to have this relaxed `-Wshadow` mode. > Generally I think the goal hasn't been to allow a clang user to keep their code GCC warning clean - if a warning has too many false positives, it can/will be changed in clang, even if it means it misses cases GCC will flag. (for example -Wreturn-type, which pops up a lot in the LLVM codebase when it fires on code that's probably unreachable that Clang is nice enough to assume won't be reached (code after a fully covered switch over enum, where each case returns)) Though it's not unheard of to bisect the diagnostic space to provide these variations if suitable - but I wouldn't suggest doing so 'just' for compatibility with GCC. > Perhaps it could be hidden under some new flag, which is not going to be > automatically enabled by `-Weverything`. > Nothing is ever not going to be automatically enabled by -Weverything (the intent is that it's really, always, everything). Or perhaps you meant -Wall? (which isn't everything & that ship's already sailed, so usually more nuanced choices are made about what goes in there, etc) > Like, `-Wshadow-in-macros` which does nothing compared to `-Wshadow`, and > then `-Wno-shadow-in-macros` which enables this relaxed mode? > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D35783 > > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
