On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:45 , Andy Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, July 02, 2012 7:48 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: >> On Jun 30, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Andy Gibbs wrote: >> >>> Part 4: Removed accidentally included override on diagnostic notes. >>> >>> <verify-part4.diff> >> >> This one I don't like. -verify tests shouldn't also be fatal error tests >> anyway. Even >> though it doesn't actually cause any problems. I don't think this is >> necessary. >> >> (Also, it invites future code like ReallySuppressAllDiagnostics, etc., even >> if none >> of us would ever do that.) > > I take your point, but my counter argument would be that it may be very > possible > to have the scenario where a test-case that originally didn't fatal error, > might following > an unintentional change the the compiler end up in a fatal error and which is > then > missed it because the diagnostics following the fatal error get swallowed up. > Right > now I can't be 100% sure but I think this actually came up during testing. It > was certainly > one of the later iterations of the patch that included this change. I'd rather just make this a rule: "fatal errors can't be tested with -verify", and have them not be suppressed by VerifyDiagnosticsConsumer. I guess this probably requires further discussion either way. > > It may be worth thinking of another alternative, but I personally feel that > it *is* very > useful to have diagnostics from -verify in the situation (intended or not!) > that a > fatal error occurs. (Of course, any alternative would still need to leave > space for the > future ReallySuppressAllDiagnostics option!! -- joking, of course!). > > Andy > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
