[Bug c/84887] missing semicolon: further improvements

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887

Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
> 
> However, as suggested e.g. by oridb on Reddit, it would be more readable to
> talk about the previous logical unit, and emit:
> 
> t.c: In function ‘test’:
> t.c:3:12: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘42’ token
>    return 42
>             ^
>             ;
> 
> or somesuch: e.g. should we highlight the preceding token as a secondary
> range, which would give:
> 
> t.c: In function ‘test’:
> t.c:3:12: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘42’ token
>    return 42
>           ~~^
>             ;
> 
> (I'm not sure either way)

link to thread on reddit?


(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> User "jancsika" on Hacker News points out:
> > [...] the output is visually confusing-- you have an arrow pointing one's
> > eye to the missing semicolon, but the underlined referent token is
> > two line  breaks away from it. Underlining the preceding "i" would put
> > the emphasized token and missing semi right next to each other.
> 
> and I agree, presumably we should print either just:
> 
> q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘i’
>  int i
>       ^
> 
> or:
> 
> q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘i’
>  int i
>      ~^

link to thread on Hacker News?