search for: script_allowed

...ot; bit for legitimate cases - > I'd prefer not to have it, but it's not the end of the world. > I do feel more strongly that if you're going to automatically add it > to cases that might not've intended to use that feature, it be pretty > clear - I don't think "script_allowed" quite captures/highlights/makes > it clear to the casual reader (why might not've seen this discussion > or seen the flag before) that this was added automatically and there's > a good chance the use of this feature is probably more likely than not > unintentional/in need...

My preference would be to go with the tri-value option - I think the downside of folks needing to write a value after "-allow-unused-prefixes" is not that terrible; if folks feel that using true/false/auto is weird, how about "allowed/disallowed/script_allowed" or something like that. I'd argue that the value here is getting to the place where the default is right (so we stop the bleeding), and where the scripted cleanup can be easily audited subsequently. On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:22 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > O...

...t the "=true" bit for legitimate cases - I'd prefer not to have it, but it's not the end of the world. I do feel more strongly that if you're going to automatically add it to cases that might not've intended to use that feature, it be pretty clear - I don't think "script_allowed" quite captures/highlights/makes it clear to the casual reader (why might not've seen this discussion or seen the flag before) that this was added automatically and there's a good chance the use of this feature is probably more likely than not unintentional/in need of cleanup. On Mon,...

...timate cases - >> I'd prefer not to have it, but it's not the end of the world. >> I do feel more strongly that if you're going to automatically add it >> to cases that might not've intended to use that feature, it be pretty >> clear - I don't think "script_allowed" quite captures/highlights/makes >> it clear to the casual reader (why might not've seen this discussion >> or seen the flag before) that this was added automatically and there's >> a good chance the use of this feature is probably more likely than not >> uninte...

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:54 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > There's a wrinkle in this: some tests (clang ones, for instance) have > output checks depending on the line position of the input. For example, > they check debug info. Adding