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

Eric Christopher via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Nov 7 13:30:09 PST 2019

Responding to you and Dave at once because you brought up similar issues:

I can definitely see that IDEs/larger build systems might want to set
a different value versus the command line compilation. I'm definitely
looking at changing the default and not removing the option :)

The Google scale experiment or the refactoring change is a good
counter argument in a lot of ways - I've done that a lot in my own use
of the compiler and knowing the next 10 or so cases is pretty useful.
That said, I'm not certain it's more or less useful than "simple"
clean errors that are easy to spot in the terminal rather than having
to scroll to more of them.

I've definitely gotten a bunch of comments that go with "what about
tooling uses" which I'll count refactoring under and a number of
people wanting just the first error in my earlier thread.

Seems to be a decent set of things. I'm uncertain how much experiment
we want to run here - but I could see it being a useful change to see
what people think.


On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric
> > Christopher via cfe-dev
> > Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 1:23 PM
> > To: Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > Cc: Richard Smith <richardsmith at google.com>
> > Subject: [cfe-dev] -ferror-limit=1 by default?
> >
> > 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?
> This feels like a case where interactive use and build-system use
> might want different defaults, because the overhead of a starting up
> a big build is typically a lot higher.  Would this be an imposition
> on all the build systems out there, that for usability they would have
> to set a higher error-limit?
> --paulr
> >
> > -eric
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list