On Jul 3, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Andy Gibbs wrote: > On Tuesday, July 03, 2012 5:18 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: > >> As I said before (without context) I don't like the idea of reparsing >> "unseen" >> files at the end; I think our implementation of CommentHandler and >> VerifyDiagnosticsHandler should just be good enough to handle these cases, >> and/or that -verify doesn't support expectations in header files. > > I totally agree (as I have mentioned elsewhere) and this is the reasoning > behind > the contentious part 6 patch -- it removes one source of "unseen" files. There > are two others, of which I have pinned one down but I don't have a patch I am > pleased with yet. As I said earlier, I have to push this work out to later in > July/August since I am about to become a father for the second time and this > will call me into other duties for a short while.
Congratulations! :-) And I suppose it's no worse than what we're doing now (i.e., completely ignoring the preprocessor and just groveling through every file we see for things that look like verify directives). >> In general, though, I think this is a very useful cleanup/enhancement to >> -verify, and although I think these policy issues should be resolved (and >> one more person should probably review the patches) I'm hoping they can go >> in soon. > > Thank you: high praise makes it all worth while. I, for my part, am very > grateful that you (and Richard) have taken the time to diligently critique > my patches. > > I have just posted the first three patches with the latest round of comments > implemented, and I trust are now commonly held to be acceptable. Would it be > possible to get these actually committed now? I guess you'd like all the > patches to be ready together, but we're still discussing patch 4 and 6, in > particular, and I would like to be able to get the first three patches out of > the way so that I don't have to keep rebasing them... The changes they make > are complete in themselves and cause no test regressions. I hope it isn't too > unreasonable a request? I'm happy to commit 1-3 once my last few questions are resolved. :-) I'll wait on a few more comments (till Thursday at least, since tomorrow's a US holiday). > Regarding the remaining patches, this is my suggestion: > > Patch 4: I have an alternative proposal for this which approaches the problem > from another angle. I think it still may raise the same concerns, but I will > try to post a patch to it shortly to see what you think. If you think not, > then we can leave this patch out and I will adjust the subsequent patches to > fit. I will have to retain this patch in the separate distribution I maintain > since I have users requesting this fix. > > Patch 5: This will get adjusted as regards the position with patch 4. > > Patch 6: I am happy to leave this out altogether at present. As mentioned > above, ultimately I think we should put some solution in as this will move > towards removing the "unseen" files problem. I have in mind what may be a > better solution... watch this space! > > Patch 7: This again will need to be adjusted to fit the position regarding > patches 4 and 6 since there is a test-case for each of these patches > contained within. Sounds good to me! Jordan _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
