David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> writes: > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 18:00 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 10/05/2016 06:15 PM, David Malcolm wrote: >> > * errors.c: Use consistent pattern for bconfig.h vs config.h >> > includes. >> > (progname): Wrap with #ifdef GENERATOR_FILE. >> > (error): Likewise. Add "error: " to message. >> > (fatal): Likewise. >> > (internal_error): Likewise. >> > (trim_filename): Likewise. >> > (fancy_abort): Likewise. >> > * errors.h (struct file_location): Move here from read-md.h. >> > (file_location::file_location): Likewise. >> > (error_at): New decl. >> >> Can you split these out into a separate patch as well? I'll require >> more >> explanation for them and they seem largely independent. > > [CCing Richard Sandiford] > > The gen* tools have their own diagnostics system, in errors.c: > > /* warning, error, and fatal. These definitions are suitable for use > in the generator programs; the compiler has a more elaborate suite > of diagnostic printers, found in diagnostic.c. */ > > with file locations tracked using read-md.h's struct file_location, > rather than location_t (aka libcpp's source_location). > > Implementing an RTL frontend by using the RTL reader from read-rtl.c > means that we now need a diagnostics subsystem on the *host* for > handling errors in RTL files, rather than just on the build machine. > > There seem to be two ways to do this: > > (A) build the "light" diagnostics system (errors.c) for the host as > well as build machine, and link it with the RTL reader there, so there > are two parallel diagnostics subsystems. > > (B) build the "real" diagnostics system (diagnostics*) for the > *build* machine as well as the host, and use it from the gen* tools, > eliminating the "light" system, and porting the gen* tools to use > libcpp for location tracking. > > Approach (A) seems to be simpler, which is what this part of the patch > does. > > I've experimented with approach (B). I think it's doable, but it's > much more invasive (perhaps needing a libdiagnostics.a and a > build/libdiagnostics.a in gcc/Makefile.in), so I hope this can be > followup work. > > I can split the relevant parts out into a separate patch, but I was > wondering if either of you had a strong opinion on (A) vs (B) before I > do so?
(A) sounds fine to me FWIW. And sorry for the slow reply. Thanks, Richard
