Re: RFC: option to toggle dtc checks on and off

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 08:07:30AM -0600, Jon Loeliger wrote:

quoted

Jon, I was hoping I'd get some comment on this patch eventually.

Sorry/ .

quoted

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:15:25PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:

quoted

Here is a draft patch which adds a -C option to dtc, allowing
individual semantic checks to be turned on and off.  It also allows
indivudual checks to be set as triggering either warnings or errors.

Turning checks on and off:  good.

quoted

quoted

I have a couple of concerns about it in its present form.  First, the
current syntax is that "-C -checkname" disables a check, "-C
checkname" turns a check on as a warning and "-C +checkname" turns it
on as an error.  I'm not convinced this is a great syntax.

Yeah, that's sub-obtimal.
What about using something like "-E checkname" and "-W checkname"?

Yeah, I though of that too.  Can't remeber why I didn't go that way.
Gets a bit weird if you specify both -E foo and -W foo, but "last one
wins" is probably still a reasonable way of deciding that.  Any
thoughts for an option to turn a check off completely?

quoted

quoted

Second, turning on a check will force on all prerequisite checks for
it.  Turning a check off will disable all checks for which it is a
prerequisite.  This seems necessary, since a check can't safely be
executed without having first checked its prereqs, but this could have
some very non-obvious effects from the command line.

Hmm...  That seems like maybe a small matter of documentation...?

I guess.  Might be worth printing a message for each check implicitly
enabled or disabled, too.

And in which order do you apply the cmd line options for their implications?
Last one takes precedence?

That was what I had in mind.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson