On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > 2008/8/14 Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > But in any case the default should be the default with no configure > > option, users liking it should find their makefiles work the same > > everywhere and users not liking it can add the opposite option. > > Then we are not going to get correct locations ever. New users do not
I do not see how your reply relates to the text you quote about not having a configure option, as opposed to the discussion of what the default should be. > read the manual. Neither old users do. New functionality disabled by I certainly did read the manual (the old "Using and Porting") when I first started to use GCC, identified those warning options that seemed good to be and put them in the standard set of warning options I use in my makefiles, and have revised that set from time to time for new versions and absed on experience. > Moreover, caret diagnostics was mentioned as the way to solve the PRs > that Aldy mentioned. If it is disabled by default, how does it solve > anything? Why bother? I would really feel that I contributed to make The solution is producing accurate location ranges, which can be used (a) to print more accurate expressions within the text of diagnostics in the existing style, (b) to print GCS-compliant ranges in text that IDEs can parse to highlight the relevant text in their editors (and we should expect that tools such as GCC and GDB are increasingly going to be used as a back end to other tools rather than just directly on the command line by users), and (c) for caret diagnostics for users liking those on the command line. Caret diagnostics are only one of the styles in which the accurate location information can be used, and implementing an individial style is only a small part of the solution. The PRs are about (a): cases where an expression text is displayed within the existing diagnostic text, badly. Naturally all cases covered by (a) should have tests in the testsuite checking the right text is printed. We should also make the testsuite able to test location ranges for diagnostics that don't include expression text for the relevant range, and then insist in patch review that tests of new front-end diagnostics appropriately assert the range involved, as well as converting existing tests to more precise assertions over time. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
