[PATCH] D65706: [docs] Better documentation for -Weverything
xbolva00 added a comment. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D65706: [docs] Better documentation for -Weverything
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL367889: [docs] document -Weveything more betterer (authored by jfb, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706?vs=213278=213390#toc Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706 Files: cfe/trunk/docs/UsersManual.rst Index: cfe/trunk/docs/UsersManual.rst === --- cfe/trunk/docs/UsersManual.rst +++ cfe/trunk/docs/UsersManual.rst @@ -992,13 +992,24 @@ Enabling All Diagnostics ^ -In addition to the traditional ``-W`` flags, one can enable **all** -diagnostics by passing :option:`-Weverything`. This works as expected -with -:option:`-Werror`, and also includes the warnings from :option:`-pedantic`. +In addition to the traditional ``-W`` flags, one can enable **all** diagnostics +by passing :option:`-Weverything`. This works as expected with +:option:`-Werror`, and also includes the warnings from :option:`-pedantic`. Some +diagnostics contradict each other, therefore, users of :option:`-Weverything` +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` +:option:`-Wno-c++-compat` because they contradict recent C++ standards. + +Since :option:`-Weverything` enables every diagnostic, we generally don't +recommend using it. :option:`-Wall` :option:`-Wextra` are a better choice for +most projects. Using :option:`-Weverything` means that updating your compiler is +more difficult because you're exposed to experimental diagnostics which might be +of lower quality than the default ones. If you do use :option:`-Weverything` +then we advise that you address all new compiler diagnostics as they get added +to Clang, either by fixing everything they find or explicitly disabling that +diagnostic with its corresponding `Wno-` option. -Note that when combined with :option:`-w` (which disables all warnings), that -flag wins. +Note that when combined with :option:`-w` (which disables all warnings), +disabling all warnings wins. Controlling Static Analyzer Diagnostics ^^^ Index: cfe/trunk/docs/UsersManual.rst === --- cfe/trunk/docs/UsersManual.rst +++ cfe/trunk/docs/UsersManual.rst @@ -992,13 +992,24 @@ Enabling All Diagnostics ^ -In addition to the traditional ``-W`` flags, one can enable **all** -diagnostics by passing :option:`-Weverything`. This works as expected -with -:option:`-Werror`, and also includes the warnings from :option:`-pedantic`. +In addition to the traditional ``-W`` flags, one can enable **all** diagnostics +by passing :option:`-Weverything`. This works as expected with +:option:`-Werror`, and also includes the warnings from :option:`-pedantic`. Some +diagnostics contradict each other, therefore, users of :option:`-Weverything` +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` +:option:`-Wno-c++-compat` because they contradict recent C++ standards. + +Since :option:`-Weverything` enables every diagnostic, we generally don't +recommend using it. :option:`-Wall` :option:`-Wextra` are a better choice for +most projects. Using :option:`-Weverything` means that updating your compiler is +more difficult because you're exposed to experimental diagnostics which might be +of lower quality than the default ones. If you do use :option:`-Weverything` +then we advise that you address all new compiler diagnostics as they get added +to Clang, either by fixing everything they find or explicitly disabling that +diagnostic with its corresponding `Wno-` option. -Note that when combined with :option:`-w` (which disables all warnings), that -flag wins. +Note that when combined with :option:`-w` (which disables all warnings), +disabling all warnings wins. Controlling Static Analyzer Diagnostics ^^^ ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D65706: [docs] Better documentation for -Weverything
aaron.ballman accepted this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM! Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:999-1000 +diagnostics contradict each other, users of :option:`-Weverything` therefore +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` +:option:`-Wno-c++-compat`. + jfb wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > jfb wrote: > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > Would you care to propose a more exhaustive list of conflicting > > > > diagnostics? (Perhaps in a follow-up patch.) > > > I looked a bit and I'm worried that providing a list won't be > > > particularly satisfying for people looking at this. I think it's better > > > to have some warning, and let folks figure out what works for their > > > particular situation. Here I'm assuming that they don't use C++98 and > > > that seems reasonable, but figuring out what side of contradictions > > > they're on doesn't seem like it'll work out. > > One of the primary concerns with enabling `-Weverything` is the fact that > > we know this enables conflicting diagnostics. Telling the user "we know > > there are conflicting diagnostics, but we want you to have the joy of > > figuring out which ones conflict for yourself" seems even more > > unsatisfying, to me. I agree that we don't want to tell users which of the > > conflicting options they should disable, but was thinking of something more > > along the lines of: > > ``` > > The following sets of options are known to have some possibly unfortunate > > interactions when enabled together: > > * -Wfoo, -Wbar > > * -Wbaz, -Wquux > > * ... > > Note that there may be other conflicting diagnostic flags not listed above. > > ``` > > I figure that gives users a bit more of an idea of what they're signing up > > for when they enable -Weverything, which seems useful. > OK I can do that as a follow-up. Awesome, thank you! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D65706: [docs] Better documentation for -Weverything
jfb marked an inline comment as done. jfb added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:999-1000 +diagnostics contradict each other, users of :option:`-Weverything` therefore +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` +:option:`-Wno-c++-compat`. + aaron.ballman wrote: > jfb wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > Would you care to propose a more exhaustive list of conflicting > > > diagnostics? (Perhaps in a follow-up patch.) > > I looked a bit and I'm worried that providing a list won't be particularly > > satisfying for people looking at this. I think it's better to have some > > warning, and let folks figure out what works for their particular > > situation. Here I'm assuming that they don't use C++98 and that seems > > reasonable, but figuring out what side of contradictions they're on doesn't > > seem like it'll work out. > One of the primary concerns with enabling `-Weverything` is the fact that we > know this enables conflicting diagnostics. Telling the user "we know there > are conflicting diagnostics, but we want you to have the joy of figuring out > which ones conflict for yourself" seems even more unsatisfying, to me. I > agree that we don't want to tell users which of the conflicting options they > should disable, but was thinking of something more along the lines of: > ``` > The following sets of options are known to have some possibly unfortunate > interactions when enabled together: > * -Wfoo, -Wbar > * -Wbaz, -Wquux > * ... > Note that there may be other conflicting diagnostic flags not listed above. > ``` > I figure that gives users a bit more of an idea of what they're signing up > for when they enable -Weverything, which seems useful. OK I can do that as a follow-up. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D65706: [docs] Better documentation for -Weverything
aaron.ballman added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:999-1000 +diagnostics contradict each other, users of :option:`-Weverything` therefore +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` +:option:`-Wno-c++-compat`. + jfb wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > Would you care to propose a more exhaustive list of conflicting > > diagnostics? (Perhaps in a follow-up patch.) > I looked a bit and I'm worried that providing a list won't be particularly > satisfying for people looking at this. I think it's better to have some > warning, and let folks figure out what works for their particular situation. > Here I'm assuming that they don't use C++98 and that seems reasonable, but > figuring out what side of contradictions they're on doesn't seem like it'll > work out. One of the primary concerns with enabling `-Weverything` is the fact that we know this enables conflicting diagnostics. Telling the user "we know there are conflicting diagnostics, but we want you to have the joy of figuring out which ones conflict for yourself" seems even more unsatisfying, to me. I agree that we don't want to tell users which of the conflicting options they should disable, but was thinking of something more along the lines of: ``` The following sets of options are known to have some possibly unfortunate interactions when enabled together: * -Wfoo, -Wbar * -Wbaz, -Wquux * ... Note that there may be other conflicting diagnostic flags not listed above. ``` I figure that gives users a bit more of an idea of what they're signing up for when they enable -Weverything, which seems useful. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D65706: [docs] Better documentation for -Weverything
jfb updated this revision to Diff 213278. jfb marked 5 inline comments as done. jfb added a comment. - Address Aaron's comments. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706 Files: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst Index: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst === --- clang/docs/UsersManual.rst +++ clang/docs/UsersManual.rst @@ -992,13 +992,24 @@ Enabling All Diagnostics ^ -In addition to the traditional ``-W`` flags, one can enable **all** -diagnostics by passing :option:`-Weverything`. This works as expected -with -:option:`-Werror`, and also includes the warnings from :option:`-pedantic`. - -Note that when combined with :option:`-w` (which disables all warnings), that -flag wins. +In addition to the traditional ``-W`` flags, one can enable **all** diagnostics +by passing :option:`-Weverything`. This works as expected with +:option:`-Werror`, and also includes the warnings from :option:`-pedantic`. Some +diagnostics contradict each other, therefore, users of :option:`-Weverything` +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` +:option:`-Wno-c++-compat` because they contradict recent C++ standards. + +Since :option:`-Weverything` enables every diagnostic, we generally don't +recommend using it. :option:`-Wall` :option:`-Wextra` are a better choice for +most projects. Using :option:`-Weverything` means that updating your compiler is +more difficult because you're exposed to experimental diagnostics which might be +of lower quality than the default ones. If you do use :option:`-Weverything` +then we advise that you address all new compiler diagnostics as they get added +to Clang, either by fixing everything they find or explicitly disabling that +diagnostic with its corresponding `Wno-` option. + +Note that when combined with :option:`-w` (which disables all warnings), +disabling all warnings wins. Controlling Static Analyzer Diagnostics ^^^ Index: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst === --- clang/docs/UsersManual.rst +++ clang/docs/UsersManual.rst @@ -992,13 +992,24 @@ Enabling All Diagnostics ^ -In addition to the traditional ``-W`` flags, one can enable **all** -diagnostics by passing :option:`-Weverything`. This works as expected -with -:option:`-Werror`, and also includes the warnings from :option:`-pedantic`. - -Note that when combined with :option:`-w` (which disables all warnings), that -flag wins. +In addition to the traditional ``-W`` flags, one can enable **all** diagnostics +by passing :option:`-Weverything`. This works as expected with +:option:`-Werror`, and also includes the warnings from :option:`-pedantic`. Some +diagnostics contradict each other, therefore, users of :option:`-Weverything` +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` +:option:`-Wno-c++-compat` because they contradict recent C++ standards. + +Since :option:`-Weverything` enables every diagnostic, we generally don't +recommend using it. :option:`-Wall` :option:`-Wextra` are a better choice for +most projects. Using :option:`-Weverything` means that updating your compiler is +more difficult because you're exposed to experimental diagnostics which might be +of lower quality than the default ones. If you do use :option:`-Weverything` +then we advise that you address all new compiler diagnostics as they get added +to Clang, either by fixing everything they find or explicitly disabling that +diagnostic with its corresponding `Wno-` option. + +Note that when combined with :option:`-w` (which disables all warnings), +disabling all warnings wins. Controlling Static Analyzer Diagnostics ^^^ ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D65706: [docs] Better documentation for -Weverything
jfb added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:999-1000 +diagnostics contradict each other, users of :option:`-Weverything` therefore +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` +:option:`-Wno-c++-compat`. + aaron.ballman wrote: > Would you care to propose a more exhaustive list of conflicting diagnostics? > (Perhaps in a follow-up patch.) I looked a bit and I'm worried that providing a list won't be particularly satisfying for people looking at this. I think it's better to have some warning, and let folks figure out what works for their particular situation. Here I'm assuming that they don't use C++98 and that seems reasonable, but figuring out what side of contradictions they're on doesn't seem like it'll work out. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D65706: [docs] Better documentation for -Weverything
aaron.ballman added a comment. Thank you for working on this! Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:998 +:option:`-Werror`, and also includes the warnings from :option:`-pedantic`. Some +diagnostics contradict each other, users of :option:`-Weverything` therefore +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` users of -Weverything therefore -> therefore, users of -Weverything Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:999-1000 +diagnostics contradict each other, users of :option:`-Weverything` therefore +often disable many diagnostics such as :option:`-Wno-c++98-compat` +:option:`-Wno-c++-compat`. + Would you care to propose a more exhaustive list of conflicting diagnostics? (Perhaps in a follow-up patch.) Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:1006 +more difficult because you're exposed to experimental diagnostics which might be +of lower quality than the default once. If you do use :option:`-Weverything` +then we advise that you address all new compiler diagnostics as they get added once -> ones Add a comma after -Weverything Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:1008 +then we advise that you address all new compiler diagnostics as they get added +to clang, either by fixing everything they find or explicitly disabling that +diagnostic with its corresponding `Wno-` option. clang -> Clang Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65706 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
