[cfe-dev] #error and #warning: why include "#error/#warning" in the diagnostic?

[Chandler Carruth]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> I received some feedback from some users who wondered why
> #error/#warning diagnostics include the actual "#error" in the diagnostic,
> e.g.:
> >>>>
> >>>> t.c:1:2: error: #error this is an error
> >>>>
> >>>> This seems redundant.  Is this necessary?
> >>>
> >>> It marks explicitly diagnostics that come from source code (as opposed
> >>> to diagnostics coming from the compiler).
> >>
> >> That seems fine for text output, but for other clients (e.g., IDEs) we
> have diagnostic categories that could provide the same functionality with a
> much better experience.
> >
> > True, no ideas how to do that though. Distinguishing between "compile
> error because the code is wrong" and "compile error because of a #error" is
> at least reasonably important I think.
>
> But the caret location makes it blindingly obvious that this came from a
> #error or #warning. We don't need the diagnostic text to remind us a second
> time.


Sure, but not everyone has the caret diagnostics turned on. It seems nice
to distinguish in the text where the actual text comes from. That said, it
just seems nice-to-have, not super important.

Certainly "#error" seems like a pretty lame way to do this. ;] My initial
thought would be:

> foo.cc:42:13: error: (from source directive) this code requires widget to
> be defined

or some variant thereof.

Among other nice things is that then the message is the same between #error
and #warning, and only the level changes. The downside I see is that it's
more verbose. Some (obvious) alternatives

foo.cc:42:13: error: source directive: ...
foo.cc:42:13: error: ... [directive]
foo.cc:42:13: error: ... [-Wdirective]  (do we even have a flag for these?)

Someone else can probably come up with a nicer way to phrase this than I
can...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20120131/ac4c81fb/attachment.html>