This is the mail archive of the gcc@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] |
Nathanael Nerode wrote:Missing diagnostics and misleading diagnostics are often very different kinds of issues requiring different skills to fix, which is why I thought the distinction might be useful.
* diagnostic (for error messages/warnings that are misleading or broken and superfluous/missing warnings)
I actually thought that there should be two keywords for this:
missing-diagnostic (There should be a warning, but there isn't.)
misleading-diagnostic (There's a warning which shouldn't be there, or should be replaced by a different warning.)
I don't think that we really need two keywords, because the volume is low: We now have thirty-something PRs with the stamp "[diagnostic]" in the summary line. They all fit on a single screen. And even if the number doubled, the number would still be small compared to "ice-on-(in)valid-code" for example.
I saw consensus. :-)And we still have the summary line where we can give information like "misleading".
Btw, thanks for adding the keyword "error-recovery"!
Regards, Volker
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |