[cfe-dev] -ferror-limit=1 by default?

[David Blaikie via cfe-dev]

I'd vote against it, personally - I think I often look at more than one
error at a time - especially with an API change/rename/reordering of
function arguments/etc - I can go through at least a handful of the call
site updates in one pass.

(we /might/ be able to do some experiments at Google scale with this sort
of thing (if we found a good way around the build caching issues (eg: could
run a sample based on file names so the cache didn't thrash due to actually
random changes in output)) & see if developers take less or more time on
average to converge on a successful build)

Taking a compiler-development look at the "30 pages of crap" to see where
it goes so far off the rails as to be unhelpful might be useful. I know
Richard's (& maybe Richard Trieu and other folks too) done some things/is
looking into ways to be more selective about overload candidates and
template instantiation stacks, etc.

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:23 AM Eric Christopher via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi All!
>
> Replying to John here on twitter:
>
> https://twitter.com/echristo/status/1192506726920011776
>
> where he was noticing the helpfulness of -ferror-limit=1 as making a
> huge usability difference. I acknowledge that being able to do good
> error recovery and keep going is useful in some cases, but for day to
> day interactive this might be a better usability default? Especially
> with the compiler fast enough for the edit/compile cycle?
>
> Thoughts? Shall we do this?
>
> -eric
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20191107/20bec3c1/attachment.html>