jlebar added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/Sema.cpp:2310 + S.Diags.noteNumOverloadCandidatesShown(ShownOverloads); + ---------------- aaronpuchert wrote: > jlebar wrote: > > aaronpuchert wrote: > > > Why not in the following `if`? I assume we want to show a long list not > > > necessarily once, but only if it comes with the first error? > > My intent was to show the long list once, even if it's not the very first > > error. My thought process: > > > > All things being equal, it's better to show more information to the user > > than less. The problem is, at some point, the amount of information we > > show becomes overwhelming and spammy. Particularly problematic are > > multiline errors, because then you get O(nm) error lines across the whole > > TU. We prevent the O(nm) overwhelm by limiting the number of lines a > > particular error can produce (using the mechanism in question here, or the > > template backtrace limit, etc), and then also limiting the total number of > > individual errors before we stop printing those. > > > > With this change, we display the full(ish) error the first time it occurs > > and then the truncated error every other time. So in total it's O(n + m) > > rather than O(nm). > Got it, but currently you'd not be exhausting the option to print a long list > once: when the first overload resolution error has fewer candidates than the > limit you'd still say we stop printing long lists of notes from now on. That > confused me because you're calling `noteNumOverloadCandidatesShown` but you > might not actually have printed that note. > > If you're going by the //O(n+m)// argument, you could put this call into the > `if (SuppressedOverloads)` and still stay under that limit. > currently you'd not be exhausting the option to print a long list once: when > the first overload resolution error has fewer candidates than the limit you'd > still say we stop printing long lists of notes from now on. But if we print <= 4 overloads then noteNumOverloadCandidatesShown has no effect? OTOH if we move it into the `if` then imagine a case where NumOverloads starts at 32 and we print 16 overloads. In that case we don't suppress any overloads. But the *next* time we still want to limit it to only 4. So moving it into the `if` would do the wrong thing. Unless I'm misunderstanding? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95754/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95754 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
