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] GCC caret diagnostics

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Chris Lattner <> wrote:
>  On Mar 12, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>  > On 08/03/2008, Chris Lattner <> wrote:
>  >>
>  >> clang points into the original input buffer that was lexed from.
>  >> This
>  >> requires keeping the original files mapped into the address space of
>  >> the compiler.  However, clang only produces diagnostics from the
>  >> front-
>  >> end, not from the middle-end.
>  >
>  > So no warnings for uninitialized variables?
>  The clang front-end generates these warnings.  This means that the set
>  of warnings produced by the compiler doesn't change as the optimizer
>  evolves, are generally less mystifying to the user, and have perfect
>  location info as a side effect.  People who use -Werror tend to prefer
>  when they don't get new random warnings due to a compiler upgrade.
>  This approach is similar to what Java compilers do and frontends like
>  EDG do (afaik).

I strongly support this point of view, and I would like to encourage fellow
GCC developers to give it considerations.  I know Mark Mittchell had
spoken in favour of it in the past.

>  The Clang project is also growing a static analysis engine which is
>  very adept at solving path sensitive versions of these problems, which
>  is useful for finding deeper bugs.

This is a debate we would like to have in a different thread :-)

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