On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:12 PM John McCall <rjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:32 PM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM John McCall via Phabricator < >> revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> rjmccall added a comment. >>> >>> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1076176, @dblaikie wrote: >>> >>> > Is there anything else in the "-w" namespace other than the literal >>> "-w" so >>> > far? >>> >>> >>> No. This would be novel. >>> >> >> Ah, I see. >> >> >>> > I mean, I could imagine it might make more sense to default these >>> warnings >>> > off & users can turn them on for non-test code, potentially? So >>> > "-Wnon-test" might make sense. >>> >>> That's an interesting idea, but it's still not a warning group, because >>> you shouldn't get the self-assign warnings unless `-Wself-assign` is >>> enabled. >>> >> >> You shouldn't? >> > > I wouldn't think so. Remember that the goal of the option is to be a > single thing that users can add to their unit-test CFLAGS to disable these > noisy-in-tests cases. So if we add an opt-in/experimental > `-Wunpredictable-foozits` warning, and it has a unit-test carve-out, > passing `-wtest -wno-test` or whatever shouldn't turn on the carved-out > special case of `-Wunpredictable-foozits`. > > It's probably not the worst thing to just use a `-W` spelling anyway; not > everything in that namespace is (e.g. `-Werror`). It could be > `-Wnoisy-in-tests` and `-Wno-noisy-in-tests`, with a documentation note > that `-Wnoisy-in-tests` is just a cancellation of `-Wno-noisy-in-tests` and > doesn't actually enable any warnings by itself. We could have the > diagnostic printer add `-Wnoisy-in-tests` to the diagnostic-group > annotation for diagnostics that would be suppressed under > `-Wno-noisy-in-tests`, analogously to how it adds `-Werror` for diagnostics > that have been promoted to an error. > That sort of sounds pretty plausible to me. Poked Richard about his opinion here too. > > John. > > >> But yeah, it's tricky either way - either you get them all, then opt out >> of all the warnings for test code you don't generally want. >> >> I'll leave it to you, then - don't feel too strongly. Maybe worth seeing >> if Richard has an opinion, but up to you. >> >> - Dave >> >> >>> >>> >>> Repository: >>> rL LLVM >>> >>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766 >>> >>> >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
