This is the mail archive of the 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: GCC Error Codes

On Sunday 15 January 2006 10:59, rubicant rubicant wrote:
> I'm trying to suggest that GCC should have error codes to describe
> errors, continue reading on if you like the idea or not ;-)
> The idea is to make GCC better when it comes to error reporting. This
> will be done using so called error codes which then can be looked up
> in a properly
> formatted document to see what the error means when in confusion. This
> will save time when it comes to searching what a error means around
> and improve usability.

FWIW, W3C have in the XQuery & XPath/XSL-T 2.0 set of languages used error 
codes. See for example:

I, as user and implementor of the languages, have found it practical with 
error codes. It gives a clear indication of what is being reported(which can 
be difficult to tell when translated, for example), and a good way of 
backtracking into the compiler/engine. The XQuery Test Suite verifies that 
proper error codes are reported.

At some stage it was decided to pad error codes so that they were equal in 
legnth(string wise). I don't know why, but perhaps it can be useful to know.

>From an implementor's perspective it could be good to keep the error codes & 
related data in one place, and generate everything from that. For example, in 
my XPath/XQuery implementation I generate[1] an enumerator for the error 
codes as well as documentation for it, from the specification. In this way 
the error code are always in sync, and, most of all, the compiler's type 
checking verifies that valid error codes are used(which is not possible when 
strings are used, for example). It's a cheap way of finding invalid codes.



For example, see:

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