smeenai added a comment. In D131307#3726643 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307#3726643>, @erichkeane wrote:
> In D131307#3726631 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307#3726631>, @smeenai wrote: > >> Was it intended that the warning generated here isn't silenced by `-w`, only >> by an explicit `-Wno-enum-constexpr-conversion` (or `-Wno-everythning`), and >> that `-Wno-error` doesn't downgrade the error? See >> https://godbolt.org/z/s9qPveTWG for an example. > > Yes, we've discussed that on this thread before: Clang's behavior for > warnings-as-default-error require explicit suppression of the warning, and > isn't effected by global warning/error settings. In D131307#3726644 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307#3726644>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > In D131307#3726631 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307#3726631>, @smeenai wrote: > >> Was it intended that the warning generated here isn't silenced by `-w`, only >> by an explicit `-Wno-enum-constexpr-conversion` (or `-Wno-everythning`), and >> that `-Wno-error` doesn't downgrade the error? See >> https://godbolt.org/z/s9qPveTWG for an example. > > Yes. That is the behavior of warnings which default to an error. The idea is: > these aren't really *warnings*, they're errors that we let users downgrade > for <reasons>. So `-w` shouldn't blanket disable them or users will be very > surprised when that warning turns into a hard error in a future version of > the compiler. So you have to explicitly disable warnings that default to an > error. The same is true for `-Wno-error` behavior. Yup, all of that makes sense; I just missed it earlier. Thank you both :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
