If we do add a warning, we probably need to make the warning more generic than this because it also applies to the Code coverage flags.
-Chris > On Sep 1, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes <bruno.card...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Justin Bogner <m...@justinbogner.com > <mailto:m...@justinbogner.com>> wrote: >> Chris Bieneman <be...@apple.com> writes: >>> beanz created this revision. >>> beanz added reviewers: bogner, zaks.anna, bruno, filcab. >>> beanz added a subscriber: cfe-commits. >>> Herald added a subscriber: emaste. >>> >>> The FreeBSD and GNUTools drivers support -fsanitize arguments >>> bypassing -nodefaultlibs. With https://reviews.llvm.org/D24048, Darwin >>> will support that behavior as well. >>> >>> To make this a little less magical and behind the curtain this warning >>> will fire when -nodefaultlibs is used with sanitizer arguments. >> >> I don't think this makes any sense. If it's a legitimate use case to >> pass these flags together, then anyone who does will have to manually >> disable this warning - if it's invalid to pass the flags together, we >> should just disallow it instead of warning. The warning either hurts >> usability or doesn't do enough. > > I disagree. Assuming that we go for allowing the behavior: I can see > the fact that the warning may be annoying, but I still think it's > better for the user to know what's happening and then disable the > warning, instead of relying on implicit assumptions. Maybe not > allowing the behavior and better modeling how these things > interoperate is a better solution, but I'll leave this topic for the > other thread. > > -- > Bruno Cardoso Lopes > http://www.brunocardoso.cc <http://www.brunocardoso.cc/>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
