aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:999-1000 +diagnostics contradict each other, users of :option:`-Weverything` therefore +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` +:option:`-Wno-c++-compat`. + ---------------- jfb wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > Would you care to propose a more exhaustive list of conflicting > > diagnostics? (Perhaps in a follow-up patch.) > I looked a bit and I'm worried that providing a list won't be particularly > satisfying for people looking at this. I think it's better to have some > warning, and let folks figure out what works for their particular situation. > Here I'm assuming that they don't use C++98 and that seems reasonable, but > figuring out what side of contradictions they're on doesn't seem like it'll > work out. One of the primary concerns with enabling `-Weverything` is the fact that we know this enables conflicting diagnostics. Telling the user "we know there are conflicting diagnostics, but we want you to have the joy of figuring out which ones conflict for yourself" seems even more unsatisfying, to me. I agree that we don't want to tell users which of the conflicting options they should disable, but was thinking of something more along the lines of: ``` The following sets of options are known to have some possibly unfortunate interactions when enabled together: * -Wfoo, -Wbar * -Wbaz, -Wquux * ... Note that there may be other conflicting diagnostic flags not listed above. ``` I figure that gives users a bit more of an idea of what they're signing up for when they enable -Weverything, which seems useful. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
