RFC: option to toggle dtc checks on and off

[David Gibson]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 08:07:30AM -0600, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> > Jon, I was hoping I'd get some comment on this patch eventually.
> 
> Sorry/ .
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:15:25PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> > > 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?

> > > 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