Diff Detail
Event Timeline
COFF/Driver.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
809 | Would it be helpful to make warn() take an optional warning number and tweak the message accordingly? "no /ignore:1234" is a bit terse for my taste. How about "suppress with /ignore:1234" or "pass /ignore:1234 to suppress" or something similar? |
COFF/Driver.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
809 | That's too word for me. I had "[/ignore:1245 to ignore]" but didn't like the redundant "ignore". I like the terse message, it's similar to how clang prints warning flags. Making warn() responsible for this makes sense once we have more than 2 uses. For now, this seems ok to me. |
COFF/Driver.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
809 | "[no /ignore:4217]" is repeated a few times in this patch indeed, but I don't think that is too many to add a new parameter to warn(). I'm fine with what you did in this patch. |
COFF/Driver.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
809 | Another idea would be to print [LNK4217] which is even terser and which finds the link.exe docs in search engines, but it's surprisingly difficult to find the /ignore: flag that way. (OTOH, with the /ignore:4217 it's hard to realize that the thing to search the web for is "lnk4217"). I don't have a strong preference between [no /ignore:4217] and [LNK4217], I probably weakly prefer the latter a bit. Hans, since you had an opinion on the spelling, wdyt? |
COFF/Driver.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
809 | It's hard to come up with anything terse that's also really clear. [LNK1234] is really short, and also very compatible so maybe that's the way to go. |
r327257, thanks!
Maybe we should also print something like
"use /ignore: to suppress numbered warnings"
if we print at least one warning with a number. Not in this change here, though.
Would it be helpful to make warn() take an optional warning number and tweak the message accordingly?
"no /ignore:1234" is a bit terse for my taste. How about "suppress with /ignore:1234" or "pass /ignore:1234 to suppress" or something similar?