MaskRay added a comment. In D158688#4625839 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158688#4625839>, @MaskRay wrote:
> 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 I think we should do D159173 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D159173> .. The warnings are still useful, but we can do it in Driver.cpp to avoid the `ForAS` hacks. 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
