https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
Bug ID: 87504
Summary: inconsistent diagnostic style between C and C++
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I noticed an improvement in the diagnostic GCC issues for the following test
case (where I made a typo in the first argument to strlnen: a&a[v0]).
$ cat c.c && gcc -O2 -S -fdump-tree-optimized=/dev/stdout c.c
const char a[] = "12345";
int v0 = 0;
int f (unsigned n)
{
if (n < 6)
n = 6;
return __builtin_strnlen (a&a[v0], n);
}
c.c: In function ‘f’:
c.c:10:30: error: invalid operands to binary & (have ‘const char *’ and ‘int’)
10 | return __builtin_strnlen (a&a[v0], n);
| ~^~~~~~
| | |
| | char
| const char *
But when testing the same code with G++ I also noticed the message is slightly
different:
c.c: In function ‘int f(unsigned int)’:
c.c:10:30: error: invalid operands of types ‘const char [6]’ and ‘const char’
to binary ‘operator&’
10 | return __builtin_strnlen (a&a[v0], n);
| ~^~~~~~
It would be nice to converge on the same format and phrasing of the diagnostic
between the two languages.
FWIW, although I like how the C message distinguishes the operands from the
operator using different colors rendering each of the operands in its own color
seems somewhat distracting (it raises the question: do the colors suggest some
subtlety of the error that's not captured in the text?) I also find the C++
phrasing more readable than the C style with the "(have ‘const char *’ and
‘int’)".
