erichkeane added a comment. In D131307#3704709 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307#3704709>, @thakis wrote:
> It's already an error, but it's a warning default-mapped to an error. You can > -Wno-error=name to downgrade it into a warning, but that requires an explicit > action. So people are unlikely to miss it. > > This is how we usually handle these breaking changes. > > Maybe there could be a test for the -Wno-error= case? But this looks roughly > right to me overall. I haven't looked in detail. We don't typically test versions of `-Wno-error=`, we tend to trust that the diagnostics system 'works' in this case. Unless there is a situation that you're concerned about? In D131307#3705362 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307#3705362>, @smeenai wrote: > In D131307#3704709 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307#3704709>, @thakis wrote: > >> It's already an error, but it's a warning default-mapped to an error. You >> can -Wno-error=name to downgrade it into a warning, but that requires an >> explicit action. So people are unlikely to miss it. >> >> This is how we usually handle these breaking changes. >> >> Maybe there could be a test for the -Wno-error= case? But this looks roughly >> right to me overall. I haven't looked in detail. > > Right, but we also want people to understand that the downgrade possibility > will be going away in the next release (i.e. it'll always be an error and > there's nothing you can do about that), so they really do want to deal with > this as a priority. While I'm sympathetic to this, I don't think there is precedent for doing something like that. I think I'd be OK tacking an extra note onto this (and starting said precedent), but I think we'd need to hear from a code-owner to make a change like that. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131307 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
