[cfe-commits] [PATCH] "missing argument" diagnostic should include argument name

[Richard Smith]

Can you add the word 'arguments' to the end of these diagnostics:

+  test18_a(b, b); // expected-error {{too many arguments to function call,
expected single argument 'a', have 2}}
+    j(2, 3); // expected-error{{too many arguments to function call,
expected at most single argument 'f', have 2}}

Other than that, I think this is fine.

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Terry Long <macmantrl at me.com> wrote:

> Any updates on if my latest patch incorporating Jordy's suggestions is
> acceptable and ready for commit by someone?
> Attached again is the patch for reference.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Terry
>
>
>
>
> Am 11.05.2012 um 15:49 schrieb Terry Long:
>
> > Here's another patch which implements all of the suggested changes.
> >
> > -Terry
> >
> > <PR11857v3.patch>
> > Am 11.05.2012 um 13:16 schrieb Terry Long:
> >
> >>> Sorry for weighing in so late, but some of the messages don't seem
> quite right to me. A "single" could help a lot for some of these cases
> (suggested fixes in brackets):
> >>>
> >>>> too few arguments to function call, [single] argument 'a' was not
> specified
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree, using 'single' helps clarify that the function takes only one
> argument.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Without the "single" I feel like this is a warning for /any/ "too few
> args" situation that's only missing one arg (e.g. 2 for 3).
> >>>
> >>>> candidate function not viable: requires [single] argument 'n', but 2
> [arguments] were provided
> >>>
> >>> This doesn't feel like valid English as written. Two whats? ("I was
> going to go to the state of Hawaii, but I went to two instead.") And here
> the "single" really underscores that the problem is too many arguments.
> >>
> >> I originally had 'arguments' in the message, but took it out assuming
> "argument 'n'" was enough to know we were talking about arguments. Given
> your Hawaii example, I can see that the more correct way is probably to
> explicitly say 'arguments'.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> candidate function not viable: requires[*] at most argument 'n', but
> 2 [arguments] were provided
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> * s/requires/allows? In this specific case of "0 or 1" it seems more
> fitting; not sure about the other "at most" warnings. Also "arguments",
> same as above.
> >>
> >> Yes, allows is more fitting. A function with 1 optional argument is not
> requiring anything.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> candidate function not viable: requires at least argument 'n', but
> none[*] were provided
> >>>
> >>> s/none/no arguments/, same as above.
> >>>
> >>> Also, why no version for err_typecheck_call_too_many_args, since the
> overload resolution gets one for too many args?
> >>
> >> I overlooked this on my first attempt at the patch, and only added it
> to the 'candidate not viable' diagnostic because the same diagnostic was
> being used for /at most/at least/exactly/. I will definitely add this in.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> too many arguments to function call, expected single argument 'n',
> have 2 [arguments]
> >>>
> >>> Here I could go either way on including the last "arguments", since it
> was already stated at the beginning.
> >>
> >> I would personally leave out 'arguments' to be consistent with all the
> other cases which use 'expected 2, have 0' form, and it is implied by the
> beginning phrase.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>
> >> I will create a new patch with these changes unless anyone else objects.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Terry
> >>
> >>
> >>> Jordy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On May 11, 2012, at 1:18, Richard Smith wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Great, thanks for working on this! Committed as r156607.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Terry Long <macmantrl at me.com> wrote:
> >>>> I've added more test coverage, removed deprecated methods, and
> extended the enhancement to the 'candidate function not viable' diagnostic
> for C++.
> >>>>
> >>>> Patch version 2 attached.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Terry Long
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 10.05.2012 um 19:17 schrieb Richard Smith:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Terry Long <macmantrl at me.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> The patch generally looks good, thanks!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Great, thanks for the feedback.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Presumably this only applies to the case where there are no
> arguments, because otherwise we couldn't know /which/ argument was missing?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, only for the case where there are no arguments to a function
> that takes 1 argument. Almost impossible to determine the missing
> argument(s) otherwise.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Please add test coverage for the
> err_typecheck_call_too_few_args_at_least_one diagnostic. Also,
> NamedDecl::getNameAsString is deprecated; please just use "<<
> FDecl->getParamDecl(0)", and use getParamDecl(0)->getDeclName()'s operator
> bool() in the test, rather than empty().
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, I'll update this. I was using the online doxygen docs and didn't
> see any deprecation warnings. Anywhere where I can find that information?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's in include/clang/AST/Decl.h:138-141, though for some reason
> those comments aren't exposed to doxygen...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It would also be great to extend this to the 'candidate function
> not viable' diagnostics in C++.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can take a look at this too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Awesome, thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> cfe-commits mailing list
> >>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cfe-commits mailing list
> >> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-commits mailing list
> > cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120514/32659004/attachment.html>