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

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 02:17:14PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 01:38:12PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:19:41PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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?

How about the way that GCC handles warnings: -Wcheckname to enable, 
-Wno-checkname to disable?

Perhaps.  What should the semantics of -Wno-foo be when "foo" is an
error level check by default?

Yes, that does get a little messy, but we could just adopt the GCC 
convention in that certain things are errors and always will be.  For 
everything else, enable with -Wfoo, disable with -Wno-foo and add a 
-Werror that turns warnings into errors?

Jamie