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]

Re: RFC: c++ diagnostics

From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple dot com>
To: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 12:54:40 -0700
Subject: Re: RFC: c++ diagnostics
References: <20100405082033.7a9bcf81@redhat.com> <A174F6BE-8E4D-48E0-BB85-4F596CF63D6A@apple.com> <20100405125122.4eb331dc@redhat.com>

On Apr 5, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

>> 
>> 5) There are a couple cases of GCC rejecting valid code (e.g. 19377),
>> or which there may be some debate about (19538) it might be worth
>> pointing this out. *shrug*
> 
> One of the goals was to measure the output when the input is
> truncated, or obviously flawed (no semicolons is very
> common!). Certainly if you can think of other (obvious) issues where
> refactoring or haste make general classes of errors I'm very interested
> in this particular type of pathology.

Absolutely, this is one of the reasons I'm particularly interested in common errors like missing semi colons, . vs ->, use of things like <::foo>, explaining overload set failures, etc.

> The valid code issues I can flag in the existing bug reports.

Ok, thanks again.

-Chris

References:
- RFC: c++ diagnostics
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: RFC: c++ diagnostics
  - From: Chris Lattner
- Re: RFC: c++ diagnostics
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik

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