Is there anything else in the "-w" namespace other than the literal "-w" so far?
I mean, I could imagine it might make more sense to default these warnings off & users can turn them on for non-test code, potentially? So "-Wnon-test" might make sense. On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:22 PM John McCall via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > 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