This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
- From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:17:13 +0000
- Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings
- References: <3E31BA13.1090504@apple.com> <138460000.1043447737@warlock.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell wrote:-
> then it's pretty confusing. I know that as we tweak the new parser,
> both warning error messages will probably change substantially.
Indeed. And the C front end is still bison based. When it converts
to recursive descent (one way or the other!) they will inevitably change
dramatically.
In my opinion many of GCC's current diagnostics are not well-worded,
or could be improved in various ways. This is particularly so when
combined with caret diagnostics: what required separate diagnostics
before for clarity can now be done with a single message.
For example, the current trigraph warnings explicitly contain the
trigraph. That's unnecessary when a caret is pointing right at it.
Similarly for all the union/struct/enum separated diagnostics in the
front end at the moment.
I hope we don't move to this new regime too quickly, because I fear
many / most warnings will still change. Putting a lump of inertia
that encourages the status quo, and makes improving the diagnostics
substantially more painful would be a real shame.
Neil.