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: RFC: color diagnostics markers

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:20:18AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek <> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:04:06PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >> We might be saying the same thing using different languages.
> >>
> >> I was the %r/%R markers are ways of implementing the IL language
> >> I suggested in that message.  So, as such I do not object to it.
> >> Having an explicit call makes the FE makes a "colorful" formatting
> >> decision way too early -- a FE shouldn't be concerned about color matters.
> >> That decision should be left to the device doing the formatting.  Separation
> >> of concerns here isn't just taste; it is good engineering practice.
> >
> > But the decision is left to the device doing the formatting.
> > The %r/%R only says, this text in between is of this kind (locus, quote
> > (well, that is automatically done by the patch also for %</%> and %qs etc.),
> > etc.), and we either color that using GCC_COLORS (or default) defined color
> > if requested through command line option and terminal supports it, or we
> > don't.
> We are in violent agreement.  I was explaining my take on %r/%R to Manuel.

So are you ok with the posted patch as is (note, the default is never there),
or would you like me to introduce %U (in addition or instead of
%r/%R), something else?  Jason acked it if nobody else has comments
but there were some, thus I'm looking for additional ack or review comments


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