As noticed by Jason in PR 2485. The current output with caret diagnostics is a bit verbose in some cases:
wa2.C: In function ‘int main()’:
wa2.C:6:6: error: no matching function for call to ‘f(int)’
f(1);
^
wa2.C:6:6: note: candidates are:
f(1);
^
wa2.C:1:6: note: void f()
void f();
^
wa2.C:1:6: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided
void f();
^
wa2.C:2:6: note: void f(int, int)
void f(int,int);
^
wa2.C:2:6: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
void f(int,int);
^
Following the discussion there, this patch changes the output to:
caret-overload.C:102:6: error: no matching function for call to ‘f(int)’
f(1);
^
note: candidates are:
caret-overload.C:1:6: note: void f()
note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided
void f();
^
caret-overload.C:10:6: note: void f(int, int)
note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
void f(int,int);
^
(Gmail messes up the alignment, see the output in the PR as it is
actually meant to be)
I have two questions. First, is the implementation approach ok?
Second, changing the output like this, requires updating tons of
testcases. I could update the testcases to match the notes without
prefix by simply matching the 0 line. But perhaps it is better to add
a new { dg-notes-2 "note1" "note2" } which passes a regexp such as
"[^\n]*note1[^\n]*\n[^\n]*note2[^\n]*" to process-message. What do you think?
Cheers,
Manuel.
caret-overload.diff
Description: Binary data
