On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Paul Fultz II <[email protected]> wrote:
> > gives the user no idea of how we got from a call to f into a call to g. > > For the default case, its better to show the first and last in the trace, > as most users don't care about the intermediate steps. > > > If we produced a stack of 'in instantiation of' notes, this would be fine > > Yes, the full back trace can be added in the future(perhaps as a compiler > flag). This is the first step towards that direction. There needs to be > some refactoring to `DeductionFailureInfo` so it stores the entire > diagnostics(rather than a single diagnostic) to make a full back trace > possible. The difference is, the current diagnostics allow the user to figure out what happened. This change does not -- there's no way to find out which 'f' caused the problem, and how we got from 'f' to 'g'. Hence this patch is not acceptable as-is -- not even as a stepping stone to something better. > note that's exactly what my patch in comment#1/comment#2 of that bug does > > That seemed to be more of a hack then something to be used in production. Yes, absolutely, that change is not production-ready.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
