aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:63 def warn_infinite_recursive_function : Warning< - "all paths through this function will call itself">, + "In order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion">, InGroup<InfiniteRecursion>, DefaultIgnore; ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > erichkeane wrote: > > Codesbyusman wrote: > > > Codesbyusman wrote: > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > erichkeane wrote: > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > > A few things: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Diagnostics in Clang are not intended to be grammatically > > > > > > > correct, so they don't start with a capital letter or end with a > > > > > > > trailing full stop (so if this wording was kept, you should use > > > > > > > `in order` instead of `In order`). > > > > > > > * While this is a cute way to get the point across, we want the > > > > > > > diagnostic to help guide the user as to why their code is wrong > > > > > > > so they have the best chance to fix the issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the original wording isn't too bad here because it's > > > > > > > lexically associated with the function definition itself (so the > > > > > > > "this function" is clear in situ), but I do think "will call > > > > > > > itself" is a bit awkward. Perhaps "this function is called > > > > > > > recursively on all paths through the function", but I don't feel > > > > > > > strongly either. > > > > > > I like the suggestion by Aaron here, "function %0 is called > > > > > > recursively through all paths through %0" (or the function). > > > > > > Perhaps the double %0 is a touch of a recursion joke as well :) > > > > > TBH, I'd probably skip the %0 because the warning is issued on the > > > > > same line as the function definition itself, so the name should > > > > > already be obvious to the user. > > > > > > > > > > This diagnostic doesn't currently handle mutually recursive > > > > > functions, and I kind of worry that adding %0 implies we support that > > > > > case when we don't. > > > > **"this function is called recursively on all paths through the > > > > function"** is good. what you say which will be more better as the > > > > **"all paths through this function will call itself"** is also ok. > > > if i am not wrong it is indicating the infinite recursion as no base > > > case. can we prompt user in some a decent manner that the base case is > > > missing. i.e. including some phrase in **"this function is called > > > recursively on all paths through the function"** that shows base case was > > > missing or this would be a bad idea? any suggestions. > > I think I'd like the first one, the location data alone is pretty annoying > > in many cases. > >>I think I'd like the first one, the location data alone is pretty annoying > >>in many cases. > > Spoke with Aaron offline, our policy is to just use the names when it is > ambiguous/helpful in a way that knowing the line is not. I'm not a huge fan > of the policy, but am not going to lobby it here, feel free to use one of hte > below suggestions. > Spoke with Aaron offline, our policy is to just use the names when it is > ambiguous/helpful in a way that knowing the line is not. I'm not a huge fan > of the policy, but am not going to lobby it here, feel free to use one of hte > below suggestions. FWIW, my feelings are not super strongly held (and it's possible this isn't "policy" so much as "the way some folks do things"), so if @Codesbyusman decides he wants to use %0 to name the function in the diagnostic or not, that's fine by me also. The only bit I definitely feel strongly about is not repeating the function name in the diagnostic and avoiding an implication that the diagnostic works for detecting mutual recursion. So I'd be fine with `function %0 is called recursively on all paths through the function` Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D127759/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D127759 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
