This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL260788: Accept "-Weverything" in clang diagnistic pragmas
(authored by ssrivastava).
Changed prior to commit:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15095?vs=47866&id=47881#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.
rsmith added a comment.
If a patch is LGTM'd and some small change is requested at the same time, that
typically means "LGTM once you make the following changes, which I trust you to
make with no further pre-commit review". If you'd prefer more pre-commit
review, of course, that's fine too.
In
Sunil_Srivastava updated this revision to Diff 47866.
Sunil_Srivastava added a comment.
Hi Richard,
Good point about that extra test. I suppose I need another LGTM for the new
test.
No other changes.
(Sorry I had missed the code change in the last round)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15095
Files:
Sunil_Srivastava updated this revision to Diff 47865.
Sunil_Srivastava added a comment.
Hi Richard,
Good point about that extra test. I suppose I need another LGTM for the new
test.
No other changes.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15095
Files:
Preprocessor/Weverything_pragma.c
Preprocessor/pra
rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
Please also add a test that a `-Weverything` on the command line can be
overridden by a `#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Weverything"`, even for a
diagnostic with no warning flag. (Th
Sunil_Srivastava updated this revision to Diff 47707.
Sunil_Srivastava added a comment.
Hi Richard,
> Can you move the special case code out of DiagnosticsEngine and into the
> pragma handler for now?
Yes. This is that approach.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15095
Files:
lib/Lex/Pragma.cpp
t
rsmith added a comment.
There seem to be two principled approaches here:
1. `DiagnosticsEngine` has a `Group` named `"everything"` (all of its interface
supports that group, and from the point of view of someone using
`DiagnosticsEngine` it behaves like any other group), or
2. There is no such
Sunil_Srivastava added a comment.
Richard, Your comment and my concern about the getDiagnosticsInGroup is still
visible in the greyed out area.
Given that do you still want to modify getDiagnosticsInGroup ?
I have removed the separate test and added the new tests to existing files, as
you sugg
Sunil_Srivastava added a reviewer: rsmith.
Sunil_Srivastava updated this revision to Diff 47509.
Sunil_Srivastava added a comment.
Changed the test, but the compiler code is still same, pending reply from
Richard Smith
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15095
Files:
lib/Basic/Diagnostic.cpp
test/Pre
Sunil_Srivastava added a comment.
Please see the comment about getAllDiagnostics
Comment at: lib/Basic/Diagnostic.cpp:251-257
@@ -250,2 +250,9 @@
SourceLocation Loc) {
+ // Special handling for pragma clang diagnostic ... "-Weverythi
rsmith added a subscriber: rsmith.
Comment at: lib/Basic/Diagnostic.cpp:251-257
@@ -250,2 +250,9 @@
SourceLocation Loc) {
+ // Special handling for pragma clang diagnostic ... "-Weverything"
+ // There is no formal group named "everyt
Sunil_Srivastava created this revision.
Sunil_Srivastava added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Special handling for “-Weverything” in ‘pragma clang diagnostic handling’
There is no formal diagnostic group named “everything”, so this code is needed.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15095
Files:
lib/Basic/D
12 matches
Mail list logo
