This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: color diagnostics markers
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:27:42 -0500
- Subject: Re: RFC: color diagnostics markers
- References: <CAESRpQAiDrn-9T7Zxvs2ZQVT9hE9_X=gnEyDkS7Y4b-vOiz3Cg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130408132301 dot GO20334 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAESRpQAz45k2SYVcEDn_oVkUuLVtGqChHRdgS0NQW5dVgrveLw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130408144359 dot GP20334 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAESRpQBXecse09cZ55_EhDzQno4K5Tid+N5beMG0JdOBLmLGJQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130408190620 dot GQ20334 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAESRpQBKcq+7UmPN-TXWwQfz6WG-R+M1X-41fWjYfzgLUUOW2Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAiZkiCFaoiZrMoC=SjF27PORt=XvKA9-JUkume5M5a36H9bAA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130411055557 dot GI16463 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAAiZkiBSHxW8n6kSLAsP3+BRJsOS=8HTtjQ=+=DxofhanXM1qQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130411152607 dot GP16463 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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