dexonsmith added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/Driver/darwin-version.c:217 // RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK-VERSION-TNO-OSV1 %s -// CHECK-VERSION-TNO-OSV1: overriding '-mmacos-version-min=10.6' option with '-target x86_64-apple-macos10.11.2' +// CHECK-VERSION-TNO-OSV1: overriding '-mmacos-version-min=10.6' option with '-target x86_64-apple-macos10.11.2' [-Woverriding-t-option] ---------------- MaskRay wrote: > hans wrote: > > MaskRay wrote: > > > hans wrote: > > > > dexonsmith wrote: > > > > > MaskRay wrote: > > > > > > dexonsmith wrote: > > > > > > > Why would we want to use the old name here? An alias seems > > > > > > > strictly better to me. > > > > > > Making `overriding-t-option` an alias for `overriding-option` would > > > > > > make `-Wno-overriding-t-option` applies to future overriding option > > > > > > diagnostics, which is exactly what I want to avoid. > > > > > > > > > > > I understand that you don't want `-t-` to apply to work on future > > > > > overriding option diagnostics, but I think the platform divergence > > > > > you're adding here is worse. > > > > > > > > > > Having a few Darwin-specific options use `-Woverriding-t-option` (and > > > > > everything else use `-Woverriding-option`) as the canonical spelling > > > > > is hard to reason about for maintainers, and for users. > > > > > > > > > > And might not users on other platforms have `-Woverriding-t-option` > > > > > hardcoded in build settings? (So @dblaikie's argument that we > > > > > shouldn't arbitrarily make things hard for users would apply to all > > > > > options?) > > > > > > > > > > IMO, if we're not comfortable removing `-Woverriding-t-option` > > > > > entirely, then it should live on as an alias (easy to reason about), > > > > > not as canonical-in-special-cases (hard to reason about). > > > > > IMO, if we're not comfortable removing -Woverriding-t-option > > > > > entirely, then it should live on as an alias (easy to reason about), > > > > > not as canonical-in-special-cases (hard to reason about). > > > > > > > > +1 if we can't drop the old spelling, an alias seems like the best > > > > option. > > > Making `overriding-t-option` an alias for `overriding-option`, as I > > > mentioned, will make `-Wno-overriding-t-option` affect new > > > overriding-options uses. This is exactly what I want to avoid. > > > > > > I know there are some `-Wno-overriding-t-option` uses. Honestly, they are > > > far fewer than other diagnostics we are introducing or changing in Clang. > > > I can understand the argument "make -Werror users easier for this > > > specific diagnostic" (but `-Werror` will complain about other new > > > diagnostics), but do we really want to in the Darwin case? I think no. > > > They can remove the version from the target triple like > > > https://github.com/facebook/ocamlrep/blame/abc14b8aafcc6746ec37bf7bf0de24bfc58d63a0/prelude/apple/apple_target_sdk_version.bzl#L50 > > > or make the version part consistent with `-m.*os-version-min`. > > > > > > This change may force these users to re-think how they should fix their > > > build. I apology to these users, but I don't feel that adding an alias is > > > really necessary. > > > Making overriding-t-option an alias for overriding-option, as I > > > mentioned, will make -Wno-overriding-t-option affect new > > > overriding-options uses. This is exactly what I want to avoid. > > > > Is keeping them separate actually important, though? -Wno-overriding-option > > has the same issue in that case, that using the flag will also affect any > > new overriding-options uses, and I don't think that's a problem. > `-Wno-overriding-option` is properly named, so affecting new > overriding-options uses looks fine to me. > `-Wno-overriding-t-option` is awkward, and making it affect new uses makes me > nervous. > > The gist of my previous comment is whether the uses cases really justify a > tiny bit of tech bit in clang and I think the answer is no. > > This change is not about changing a semantic warning that has mixed opinions, > e.g. `-Wbitwise-op-parentheses` (many consider it not justified). > The gist of my previous comment is whether the uses cases really justify a > tiny bit of tech bit in clang and I think the answer is no. > I think we agree that we should add the minimal technical debt to clang. This patch is harder-to-reason about, and thus bigger IMO, technical debt than adding an alias would be. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D158301/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D158301 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
