kristina requested changes to this revision. kristina added a comment. In D55150#1321829 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55150#1321829>, @efriedma wrote:
> I'm not sure that putting a warning that can be disabled really helps here; > anyone who needs the option will just disable the warning anyway, and then > users adding additional options somewhere else in the build system will miss > the warning. > > Instead, it would probably be better to rename Xclang and mllvm to something > that makes it clear the user is doing something unsupported. Maybe > "--unstable-llvm-option" and "--unstable-clang-option" or something like > that. (This will lead to some breakage, but the breakage is roughly > equivalent for anyone using -Werror.) Thinking about it more, downstream forks with custom passes may utilize those flags in tests, renaming them is definitely not the way to go, that is going to cause a lot of problem and possibly a lot of angry downstream users as well as contributors. Some out-of-tree test suites will treat warnings as failures so that behavior by default is also a possible cause for concern. I *really* think just changing the documentation to inform consumers about what the flags are intended for. In fact `-mllvm` is used extensively in a lot of lit/FileCheck tests, so that's also going to cause problems. I think it's best to just document these options better, I agree, the documentation is extremely poor but anything beyond that will/could cause issues in so many places. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55150/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55150 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
