xbolva00 added a subscriber: rsmith. xbolva00 added a comment. In D100581#2697697 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100581#2697697>, @mbenfield wrote:
> In D100581#2693131 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100581#2693131>, @xbolva00 > wrote: > >>>> These warnings are not enabled by any other flags. This is different from >>>> gcc, where -Wunused-but-set-variable is enabled by -Wextra in combination >>>> with either -Wunused or -Wall. >> >> IMHO we should follow gcc here. > > I'd be happy to do so, but there are two issues: > > 1. I'm not sure this is feasible and fits in with how Clang's diagnostics are > organized. AFAICT clang's diagnostics are not set up to have a diagnostic > enabled only if //two// other flags are set. If I'm wrong please let me know. > > 2. In gcc, this is how `-Wunused-parameter` behaves, but clang's > `-Wunused-parameter` is already different. In clang, it's enabled by > `-Wextra` regardless of `-Wall` or `-Wunused`. I am a little bit worried that another off by default warning is not ideal from user point of view. Either the user simply would fail to find out that there is a new option or will be surprised that gcc fires and clang does not even when we claim we implemented this “gcc’s” warning. About your points, @rsmith may help you. - Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100581/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100581 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
