RFC: color diagnostics markers

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.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 <jakub@redhat.com> 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
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00536.html
> but there were some, thus I'm looking for additional ack or review comments
> ;)
>
>         Jakub

Patch OK.

-- Gaby