[cfe-dev] numbered warnings & errors?

[Douglas Gregor]

On Jan 5, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:

> 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 think it's the same idea, extended to all diagnostics.

	- Doug