On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Quentin Colombet <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Hal,
>
> Thanks for you feedbacks.
>
> On Dec 17, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Hal Finkel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Quentin,
>
> Any reason you did not use phabricator for this patch?
>
> I thought it was trivial enough not to require a phabricator.
>
>
> +def BackendInlineAsm : DiagGroup<"backend-inline-asm">;
>
> +def BackendStackSize : DiagGroup<"backend-stack-size">;
>
> +def BackendPlugin : DiagGroup<"backend-plugin">;
>
> Are these group names user-visible?
>
> I think they are. At least, I get this name when a warning is issued:
> warning: stack size exceeded (168) in main [-Wbackend-stack-size]
> 1 warning generated.
>
> If they are, do we want "backend" in the name?
>
> I do not have any strong opinion on that.
> This prefix makes it clear that these diagnostics are issued by the backend.
> I thought it may be useful to have a naming convention for those.
At least for built-in diagnostics, inline-asm and stack-size, users
don't really care which part of the compiler produces the diagnostic.
Also, which flag does GCC use for these? We should be compatible if
possible.
Dmitri
--
main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
(j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>*/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
