rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766#1076090, @dblaikie wrote:
> FWIW I don't fundamentalyl object to also having something like -wtest. > Probably needs a better name though (unfortunately the double-negative gets > confusing... - like you want to describe the set of diagnostics that should > not be used in test code, so that as a group might be "-Wnon-test" but then > "-Wno-non-test" is pretty awkward) - probably worth chatting to Richard > Smith about that, I reckon. That's why I was suggesting putting it in the `-w` namespace. We really wouldn't expect or want users to ever use a *positive* version of this warning option — specifically asking for just the warnings that are known to be problematic for test code, across all warnings. It's just not really a warning group. It could also be something like `-fsuppress-problematic-test-warnings`, of course, but I was basically thinking of `-w` as meaning `-fsuppress-problematic-*-warnings`. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D45766 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
