lebedev.ri added a comment. Thank you for the feedback!
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43162#1022427, @rsmith wrote: > This is the wrong way to deal with this. The only thing that should ever be > controlled by -W flags is whether the warnings in that group appear, not > whether warnings in other groups appear. The principle is that -W flags > should behave "as if" they filter the diagnostic output of Clang. (We > actually depend on this in the implicit modules implementation, to allow > modules to be reused in compilation modes where a different set of warning > flags is enabled.) `isIgnored` exists only to allow the computations leading > to the emission of a diagnostic to be skipped if the diagnostic will not > actually be emitted. Aha, i see. To be noted, this is how it is currently already done for `warn_cxx98_compat_no_newline_eof`/`warn_no_newline_eof` https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/f828172bcfd7d6d10497c645c3cc5eee321cd669/lib/Lex/Lexer.cpp#L2684-L2695 https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/f828172bcfd7d6d10497c645c3cc5eee321cd669/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticLexKinds.td#L58-L63 So i'm guessing that^ should be fixed too? > The right thing to do is to add a new warning group for the > `warn_cxx98_compat_top_level_semi` warning, and make that a subgroup of the > `-Wextra-semi` group. That way `-Wno-extra-semi` can be used to turn off both > the C++98 extension warning and the C++11 compatibility warning. Take a look > at the `*BinaryLiteral` warning groups for an example of how to do this. > (That case is a little more complex because there's also a warning group for > the corresponding case in C.) I'll look into it, but *right now* this sounds like it won't do what i'm trying to do here. Hopefully i'm just missing the point :) Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D43162 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
