[cfe-dev] numbered warnings & errors?

[Chris Lattner]

On Jan 5, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:

>>
>> 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?
>
> The notable difference is that each warning does not have a unique
> hierarchical identifier which also functions as its canonical name
> (i.e., in documentation). We have an ad-hoc naming convention for
> diagnostics in the code, but those names aren't exposed.
>
> From the perspective of warning groups, most diagnostics have no name,
> some have multiple names, and the names as visible to the user are
> totally unrelated to the internal diagnostic names.

Ah, so you really want a 1-1 mapping between diagnostics and "names".   
Ok.  How stable are the names though?  Would they be exposed through a  
command line interface (something like -W flags)?

-Chris