karka228 wrote: I have started to implement defining the -Wformat-signedness option config in clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td as suggested originally by @hazohelet and I agree that the implementation is a lot cleaner that way. However before finishing implementing that I think we need to conclude what level of gcc compatibility that we aim for in clang.
Below I list the characteristics of -Wformat-signedness that I have seen by testing it out in gcc and reading the gcc documentation (I have not inspected the gcc source code): 1. The option -Wformat-signedness is default off. 2. The -Wformat-signedness warnings are not enabled alone by the -Wformat option. 3. The -Wformat-signedness warnings are not enabled alone by the -Wformat-signedness option. 4. The -Wformat-signedness warnings are enabled by the option -Wformat together with the option -Wformat-signedness. 5. Parts of the -Wformat-signedness warnings (regarding scanf) are enabled by the options -Wformat together with the option -pedantic. 6. Warnings produced by -Wformat-signedness is reported as a -Wformat warnings (e.g "warning: format ‘%u’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 2 has type ‘int’ [-Wformat=]" 7. Warnings produced by -Wformat-signedness can be suppressed by "#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored -Wformat" Which of the above points are important for us to follow in clang to get a reasonable gcc compatibility? To me I think point 1, 2 and maybe 7 is the most important to follow. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74440 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
