http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> 2010-10-02 17:30:05 UTC --- On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850 > > Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |g...@integrable-solutions.ne > | |t > > --- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-02 > 16:59:28 UTC --- > I would personally like to have this. I know most people that want this use a > wrapper around gcc (or have moved to clang), but the output of gcc is not > designed to be machine readable, I believe different people have different take on this. I've seen people argue and get stuff in on the basis that the output should be machine readable. I would suggest restraint from sweeping statements, in the quest for consensus. > so I think there is a benefit on implementing > this in GCC. > > Since gcc doesn't have caret or fix-it hints, my proposal is quite modest, > just > color the diagnostic markers: > > error: (bold red) > warning: (magenta) > note: (blue? green?) my copy of GCC (under openSUSE) colors the output and let me customize the colors. That is quite system dependent. Getting the same stuff under non-Unix like system require more constraints on the environment. How far should we go to emulate an IDE?
