cjdb added a comment. In D126796#3551288 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126796#3551288>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D126796#3551280 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126796#3551280>, @MaskRay wrote: > >> In D126796#3551261 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126796#3551261>, @cjdb wrote: >> >>> In D126796#3550848 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126796#3550848>, @MaskRay >>> wrote: >>> >>>> FYI `diagtool tree` dumps the diagnostics. You can even provide -W options >>>> and observe the differences. >>> >>> Is `diagtool tree` something that users widely know about? >> >> I think no. But any random new option to clang will have the same >> discoverability problem. > > Yes, but I think there's a pretty wide discoverability gap between > "documented command line option that shows up in Clang" and "random utility > that doesn't have any obvious relationship to Clang specifically". Agreed. I think a combination of Clang-next's release notes, plus this appearing in `--help` and web docs will be enough. On discoverability, I'm thinking `--print-all-warning-options` might be a better name, since 'diagnostic' is a fairly technical term (and this is also not printing all diagnostics). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126796/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126796 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
