awarzynski added a comment. In D143301#4126855 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143301#4126855>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> In D143301#4126712 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143301#4126712>, @awarzynski > wrote: > >>> I think the -W stuff can go in, it has tests and is reasonable. >> >> I'd like for us to rely on a flag from Options.td for this instead. >> Something similar to clang_ignored_f_Group >> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/630266aed342797d6413a69b8792567fc6263501/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td#L233-L234>. >> I would probably call it `flang_ignored_w_Group` :) > > For the -W stuff? You want to remove the explicit warning then (which is > generally fine too)? I had something like this in mind: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/7301a7ce196e217c077b2b68f58366be48664223/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp#L7448. Also, the whole logic could be moved to the compiler driver (i.e. Flang.cpp) 🤔 . Emitting a warning makes sense, but do we care about the frontend driver (i.e. "CompilerInvocation.cpp")? (which is intended for developers familiar with the implementation?) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143301/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143301 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
