MaskRay added a comment. In D158688#4624267 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158688#4624267>, @simon_tatham wrote:
> The change LGTM, and "agree with gcc" seems like a reasonable justification > in this case. Thank you both! > But I'm curious more generally about what options should / shouldn't be > covered by `-Wunused-command-line-argument`. Doesn't the same reasoning apply > to //most// options that C compilation uses and assembly doesn't? If you have > a command of the form `clang -someoption -c foo.c`, it's surely //always// > convenient for a user to be able to change the `.c` into a `.s`, or to put a > variable list of files on the end of the command line which might or might > not include any `.c` files. `-Wunused-command-line-argument` does fire for most options when the only input kind is assembly without preprocessing. It seems that the diagnostics are for `assembler` input, not `assembler-with-cpp`... > Why is this option in particular different from others? Is there a documented > policy anywhere? I am not aware of a documented policy anywhere, but I have some notes on https://maskray.me/blog/2023-08-25-clang-wunused-command-line-argument#assembler-input . Let me ask on Discourse: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/wunused-command-line-argument-for-assembly-files/73111 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D158688/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D158688 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
