[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cfe-dev
Subject:    Re: [cfe-dev] Notes in Clang diagnostics and LLVM DiagnosticInfo
From:       Eric Christopher <echristo () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-02-25 19:35:18
Message-ID: CALehDX5MvWcJKROATpY0GgexYRRvKmEH0Qy1WLAr79yoUttxVw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2014, at 2:29 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias@grosser.es> wrote:
> > > > // Report the backend message using the usual diagnostic mechanism.
> > > > FullSourceLoc Loc;
> > > > -  Diags.Report(Loc, DiagID).AddString(MsgStorage);
> > > > +  DiagnosticBuilder DB = Diags.Report(Loc, DiagID);
> > > > +  DB.setForceEmit();
> > > > +  DB.AddString(MsgStorage);
> > > > 
> > > > We could use this to either force printing of all backend diagnostics or only \
> > > > the notes. However, I am afraid that would break existing flags to suppress \
> > > > diagnostics.
> > > Would it be hard to check what is the actual behavior?
> > > That would indeed be unfortunate!
> > 
> > As Richard confirmed, using 'note' to provide information not attached to another \
> > warning or error is not intended. I submitted two patches to introduce a new \
> > 'remark' type that can be used for exactly this purpose.
> 
> How about calling these "informative" diagnostics, and use "info:" for them?  That \
> seems more descriptive than remark. 

Seems like a good idea. :)

-eric
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]