This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: cpplib: Consolidation of error functions

From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:45:10 +0100
Subject: Re: cpplib: Consolidation of error functions
References: <20020414184544.GA31468@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <25980000.1018880664@gandalf.codesourcery.com>

Mark Mitchell wrote:-

> Speaking of which, why did you make DL_WARNING and so forth be macros,
> rather than enumerals?

I intended the level to be OR-ed with other flags.  In particular, one
indicating whether it was a follow-up to the previous message.  The old
structure of being forced to decide a severity level (e.g. cpp_error)
led me thinking down that path; in fact it should not be necessary;
we could just have DL_FOLLOWUP or DL_CONTINUED.  Flags may be useful
in other cases; I'm not sure.

Neil.

References:
- Re: cpplib: Consolidation of error functions
  - From: Neil Booth
- Re: cpplib: Consolidation of error functions
  - From: Mark Mitchell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]