AaronBallman wrote: > > Can you also add a test showing the difference between `-Wformat > > -Wformat-signedness` and `-Wformat-signedness` by itself (which does > > nothing)? > > With the current implementation `-Wformat-signedness` by itself actually turn > on the signedness warnings. This is not compatible with how gcc do it. I > guess I have thought that it was not that important to be compatible with gcc > in this respect. However if it is I guess this could be implemented.
Personally, I find GCC's behavior a bit surprising, so I'm okay with a divergence there. But we should have tests for this just the same: * `-Wformat-signedness` * `-Wformat-signedness -Wno-format` * `-Wno-format -Wformat-signedness` The first test helps demonstrate that we intentionally deviate from GCC, but it also helps show whether `-Wformat-signedness` implies `-Wformat` or not. The second test helps answer whether `-Wformat-signedness` is turned off by disabling `-Wformat`. The third test helps answer whether format signedness can be turned on while turning off all other formatting warnings -- this test may not be needed if `-Wformat-signedness` by itself enables only the signedness diagnostics. > > I'd also like to see a test demonstrating that `#pragma GCC diagnostic > > ignored -Wformat` disables the signedness warnings. > > There is a single test in the end of > clang/test/Sema/format-strings-signedness.c that demonstrate this. Ah thank you! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74440 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
