This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: c++ diagnostics
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 12:02 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > >> http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-recovery.html
> > >
> > > ...As it happens, some C++ diagnostics are better than the
> > > same diagnostic for C and viceversa.
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:45:11AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > I think all the C examples are also valid C++ code, they should apply equally well, but I admit that I didn't try those on g++ to see how it does. I figured it also didn't matter much because there has surely been significant progress since gcc 4.2.
> Yes, g++ does a better job for some of Chris's examples than gcc does.
> For the second example we get
> t.c:1: error: 'pid_t' has not been declared
> For the third example:
> t.c:2: error: 'int64' does not name a type
> However, most of the criticisms do apply, and the spell checker is a
> very good idea.
The Ada FE does it FWIW:
$ cat p.ads
pakage P is
subtype My_Count is Intger
$ gcc -c -gnatq p.ads
p.ads:1:01: incorrect spelling of keyword "package"
p.ads:2:23: "Intger" is undefined
p.ads:2:23: possible misspelling of "Integer"
p.ads:2:29: missing ";"
The checker is in gcc/ada/g-spchge.adb