On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Dimitry Andric via Phabricator <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > dim added a comment. > > Actually, having thought about it a little more, if the warning is "rather > broken", or even "completely broken", depending on one's point of view, then > maybe it is better not have it under `-Wextra` either? E.g. somebody has to > ask for the warning specifically, using `-Wtautological-constant-compare`, or > use `-Weverything`? > > I ask this, because in FreeBSD we have traditionally been using `-W`, which > is (again, historically) an alias for `-Wextra`. We now still have to > explicitly use `-Wno-tautological-constant-compare` everywhere. :-(
I think having it under -Wextra is reasonable -- I don't think it's rather/completely broken, I think it's more strict at diagnosing issues than some people would like to see by default (which can be a subjective measure). If we're talking about removing it from -Wextra such that you have to enable it by name only, I'd say it should be removed entirely (at least temporarily) -- "no one" enables diagnostics by name (and very few use -Weverything) and it increases our maintenance burden to carry around a feature no one will use. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
