looks good! Feel free to commit whenever, I'd definitely recommend posting a PSA on cfe-dev@ (after you commit) so that people know about it. You might also get some useful ideas for improvements that way too.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:52 PM Don Hinton <hinto...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:18 PM Don Hinton <hinto...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Seems fine, it would be nice if the workflow could be improved a little >>>> bit so that all you have to do is say `clangdiag break >>>> —error=“-Wcovered-switch”` or something . I think that gives the most >>>> intuitive usage for people, even it’s a bit harder to implement. >>>> >>> >>> The idea was to break on actual diagnostics emitted, but if you want to >>> break on diagnostic usage, i.e., when it was checked but not emitted, I >>> suppose that's possible as well. diagtool doesn't produce a mapping for >>> this, but it could be added -- assuming tablegen produced enough info in >>> the .inc files to support it. I added the feature I'm using here a few >>> months ago, which was an extension to what Alex added earlier. >>> >> >> That was my idea too. But still, wouldn't it be possible to say >> `clangdiag break --error="-Wcovered-switch"` and then have it break only >> when the -Wcovered-switch diagnostic is *emitted*? >> > > Please give it a try, e.g., here are a few I tried: > > clangdiag enable covered-switch-default > clangdiag enable c++11-compat > > You can't pass the "-W" part since argparse thinks it's an option (can > probably fix that if it's a problem), and you must provide the entire > name. You can get the available names from diagtool, e.g.: > > diagtool list-warnings > > Please let me know what you think, and thanks for suggesting it. > > > >> >> The reason I keep using this syntax though is because clang developers >> always think in terms of the warning names. If you want to find out why a >> warning is being emitted amidst a spew of other warnings and errors, you >> really want to be able to specify the name of the warning. >> >> Don't get me wrong though, I do think this is a nice feature, I'm just >> thinking of ways to make it more compelling by looking at it from the clang >> developer's perspective and how they will most likely want to use it. >> >> Also, I still think it should go in lldb, not in clang. That's kind of >> exactly what the lldb/examples folder is for. >> >> That said, lgtm, but I'm still interested to see if the workflow can be >> streamlined down the line. Perhaps after it gets checked in you can make a >> PSA on cfe-dev@ and mention that you want people to try it out and offer >> feedback ;-) >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
