[cfe-dev] numbered warnings & errors?

[Chris Lattner]

On Jan 5, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> I'm not in a particular rush to see this problem solved though,
>> because a lot of the value of having stable warning numbers/names is
>> in the stability, so letting our diagnostics bake for a while is  
>> good.
>
> Agreed. What I *don't* want is for us to feel restricted by an  
> existing numbering system, where we don't want to improve  
> diagnostics (e.g., by splitting one diagnostic into several) because  
> some users may have suppressed that diagnostic with a pragma.

How is this different and better than the existing warning group  
stuff?  They are already hierarchical and unique.  The only difference  
is that they aren't in reverse dotted form?

>> I'm also curious about alternate approaches which don't rely on
>> exposing a stable name to the user (for example, by having the
>> compiler embed some of the documentation, which could then have a
>> verbose link to more information -- it would still be keyed by some
>> number + version, but not in a way that needs to be stable).
>
>
> I take it as gospel that the documentation should be embedded in the  
> compiler, and then any external representation of that documentation  
> can be generated by the compiler itself.

I completely agree.

-Chris