On Wed, 18 Dec 2024, James K. Lowden wrote: > I think the issue that raised the most concern is the one I think is > most important: diagnostics. It was unclear -- still is, to me -- > whether the COBOL front end must or should use the gcc diagnostic > framework. (In my defense, the system goes unmentioned in gccint.info.)
It definitely *should*. By doing so, you get access for free to so many features, including highlighting parts of the message coming from certain formats, automatically printing the part of the source code referred to in the diagnostic (caret diagnostics), links to documentation for relevant warning options (in terminals that support them), SARIF output, Unicode quotes, translation, the ability to incrementally add fix-it hints in your front end for any cases where they are useful, consistency of diagnostic appearance with those diagnostics coming from the GCC middle-end, .... As for "must" - well, Ada doesn't, but for any front end implemented in C++ and not shared with a non-GCC back end, it would seem rather unfortunate to do something different and inconsistent with the rest of GCC. -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
