[PATCH] D95536: [clang][sema] Note decl location on missing member

[Timm Bäder via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

tbaeder added a comment.

In D95536#2552258 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95536#2552258>, @aaron.ballman wrote:

> In D95536#2551332 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95536#2551332>, @tbaeder wrote:
>
>> Any update on this?
>
> Thank you for the patch! Do you have some motivating examples of when this would really add clarity to the diagnostic? I'm not opposed to the patch per se, but I'm a bit wary about adding an additional note because that makes the diagnostic output seem that much longer, which makes the salient diagnostics a bit harder to find (colorization in the terminal helps with this, though).

I run into this a lot when looking into a larger, new code base. When adding new code, I often look at surrounding code and infer how e.g. an enum member is called. Take https://godbolt.org/z/Tcoxf5 for example, I could've seen code using `OsType::Unix` and inferred that the OsType for Windows will be called `OsType::Windows`, but it's `Win32`. The next step for me as a human is of course to grep the source code for the declaration of `OsType` and check the members. (On the other hand, a "Foo is not a member of enum FooEnum, existing members are: Bar1, Bar2, Bar3, ..." diagnostic would probably be more useful. But that has its own drawbacks).


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D95536/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D95536