Rolling back the thread a bit...
On Wednesday, July 04, 2012 2:46 AM, Jordan Rose wrote: > On Jul 3, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Andy Gibbs wrote: >> I think a problem I have seen is that where a fatal error occurs, you >> simply get no diagnostics at all -- except a cryptic line telling you how >> many errors occurred. From my point of view it is much better to always >> see the -verify diagnostics since this is the purpose of the feature -- >> to catch diagnostics and display them where they do not match those >> expected. In the current case, you don't even get the diagnostic of the >> line *causing* the fatal error! > > Again, what I'd prefer is that fatal errors are NOT suppressed, or rather > not caught by VerifyDiagnosticsConsumer, so even if you don't get the > verify-related complaints you still know what's up. Something as simple as > a check in HandleDiagnostic for DiagLevel == FatalError, and then a very > simple text output on the spot would do it for me. > > However, if we don't go with that, this approach is better than the last > one (though I would have personally used a flag argument on > EmitCurrentDiagnostic rather than a separate ForceEmitCurrentDiagnostic). > I can live with it. (Anyone else have opinions here?) Ok, attached is the patch referred to in the above conversation, but with the fix suggested implemented. Cheers Andy
verify-part4.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
