Re: new parser: error recovery needs work

[Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>]

Fergus Henderson wrote:

> On 16-Jan-2003, Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 02:11:05PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
> >
> > > You really don't want to rely on the text of an error message not changing
> > > over time.  For this kind of thing to work, we need error messages to have
> > > numbers (like every other compiler does, and with reason).
> > Oooh, and with message numbers it's possible to add options to enable
> > or disable individual warnings.
> We've discussed this before.  The concensus last time (as I understood it)
> was that alphanumeric message codes where a better alternative to message
> numbers.  Message codes are easier to remember, more self-documenting,
> and avoid collisions between new warnings added on different CVS branches
> or in different repositories.
>
> IIRC there was significant opposition to message numbers, because they
> are too cryptic and because of the problem with collisions, but I don't
> recall anyone objecting to alphanumeric message codes.
As it happens, one of my job tasks for next week is to present a formal
proposal for how to add this, which I've been calling "named warnings",
to GCC.  So if you can hold out for a few more days, there will be
something specific to flame... :-)

Stan