[PATCH] D127759: [Diagnostic] Clarify -Winfinite-recursion message

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:63
 def warn_infinite_recursive_function : Warning<
-  "all paths through this function will call itself">,
+  "In order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion">,
   InGroup<InfiniteRecursion>, DefaultIgnore;
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > Codesbyusman wrote:
> > > Codesbyusman wrote:
> > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > > A few things:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > * Diagnostics in Clang are not intended to be grammatically correct, so they don't start with a capital letter or end with a trailing full stop (so if this wording was kept, you should use `in order` instead of `In order`).
> > > > > > > * While this is a cute way to get the point across, we want the diagnostic to help guide the user as to why their code is wrong so they have the best chance to fix the issue.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think the original wording isn't too bad here because it's lexically associated with the function definition itself (so the "this function" is clear in situ), but I do think "will call itself" is a bit awkward. Perhaps "this function is called recursively on all paths through the function", but I don't feel strongly either.
> > > > > > I like the suggestion by Aaron here, "function %0 is called recursively through all paths through %0" (or the function).  Perhaps the double %0 is a touch of a recursion joke as well :) 
> > > > > TBH, I'd probably skip the %0 because the warning is issued on the same line as the function definition itself, so the name should already be obvious to the user.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This diagnostic doesn't currently handle mutually recursive functions, and I kind of worry that adding %0 implies we support that case when we don't.
> > > > **"this function is called recursively on all paths through the function"**  is good. what you say which will be more better as the  **"all paths through this function will call itself"**  is also ok. 
> > > if i am not wrong it is indicating the infinite recursion as no base case. can we prompt user in some a decent manner that the base case is missing. i.e. including some phrase in **"this function is called recursively on all paths through the function"** that shows base case was missing or this would be a bad idea? any suggestions.
> > I think I'd like the first one, the location data alone is pretty annoying in many cases.
> >>I think I'd like the first one, the location data alone is pretty annoying in many cases.
> 
> Spoke with Aaron offline, our policy is to just use the names when it is ambiguous/helpful in a way that knowing the line is not.  I'm not a huge fan of the policy, but am not going to lobby it here, feel free to use one of hte below suggestions.
> Spoke with Aaron offline, our policy is to just use the names when it is ambiguous/helpful in a way that knowing the line is not. I'm not a huge fan of the policy, but am not going to lobby it here, feel free to use one of hte below suggestions.

FWIW, my feelings are not super strongly held (and it's possible this isn't "policy" so much as "the way some folks do things"), so if @Codesbyusman decides he wants to use %0 to name the function in the diagnostic or not, that's fine by me also. The only bit I definitely feel strongly about is not repeating the function name in the diagnostic and avoiding an implication that the diagnostic works for detecting mutual recursion. So I'd be fine with `function %0 is called recursively on all paths through the function`


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D127759/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D127759