xazax.hun added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38171#909346, @leanil wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38171#901427, @xazax.hun wrote: > > > One problem to think about when we add all clang-diagnostic as "first or > > second" class citizen, `checkes=*` might now enable all the warnings which > > make no sense and might be surprising to the users. What do you think? > > > This is a good point. Should I insert ",-clang-diagnostic*" after any > (positive) * ? @alexfh do you have some thoughts on this? https://reviews.llvm.org/D38171 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
