Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
<lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 23:54, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>>[....]
>>> Of course, the major question is: Are the decision makers in GCC
>>> interested on any of this?
>>>
>>> Would some reviewer reject patches implementing them?
>>
>> I suspect decisions will be based on the implementations themselves.
>>
>
> So given your ideal implementation, if the user-visible result was
> exactly like the one in Clang, will you be happy with any of the three
> things: ranges, color and fix-it hints?

My ideal isn't to replicate Clang :-)

I would like us to set a standard that Clang would have to follow :-)
There are several things that need to be considered.
The three items above are choices in the toolset.  Ideally, I would
like to have a mechanism where the output could be configured
(through a command line switch, etc) that allows for example IDEs
(not just GNU Emacs) to hook into databases of advices, standard
definitions, etc.  Even for our own testsuites, this might be useful
instead of the current one-dimensional char sequence
oriented diagnostic testing.


>
> Or you will prefer to never have some of them or to have them disabled
> by default?
>
> Or to have them, but in a different (user-visible) manner?

I suspect to some degree this is closer to I would like to see, but again,
I would prefer to make a judgment based on an implementation.

-- Gaby