[llvm-dev] [RFC] Preferred error/note style across non-clang tools, e.g. tablegen

[Eric Christopher via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:30 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> A question of preference came up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D83588 as to
> whether we ought to prefer emitting TableGen error messages with all of the
> information in a single diagnostic, or whether it makes sense to split
> things in an error+note style as seen in many clang diagnostics. TableGen
> doesn’t use a DiagnosticsEngine, so the concept of a fatal note following
> an error is a bit new/foreign there, but perhaps something that makes sense
> adding.
>
> Is there any precedence here for other internal llvm tooling (outside of
> clang)? What’s the general consensus here?
>
>
> I think it makes a lot of sense to add this to TableGen.  It is a widely
> used tool and the QoI for its error messages could use a lot of improvement!
>
>
I'm in agreement here. Also incremental is very welcome.

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200721/d1b7ff95/attachment.html>