scott.linder added a comment.
In D123878#3507378 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123878#3507378>, @vangthao wrote:
> I am not sure if allowing clang to accept newlines is a good idea. It seems
> like clang wants to know what type of message is being outputted. For example
> whether this is a remark, warning, etc. but allowing for a diagnostic to
> output their own newline makes it ambiguous where exactly that output is
> coming from.
It already supports newlines in any diagnostic which doesn't use the trivial
format string `"%0"`, and at least `clang/test/Misc/diag-line-wrapping.cpp`
explicitly tests this behavior.
It seems reasonable that clang could add a prefix or indentation scheme while
emitting multi-line diagnostics to the terminal, to help with the ambiguity
issue. For example instead of the current output:
clang/test/Misc/diag-line-wrapping.cpp:8:14: error: non-static member 'f'
found in multiple base-class subobjects of type 'B':
struct DD -> struct D1 -> struct B
struct DD -> struct D2 -> struct B
Maybe we could have something like:
clang/test/Misc/diag-line-wrapping.cpp:8:14: error: ...
...: non-static member 'f' found in multiple base-class subobjects of type
'B':
...: struct DD -> struct D1 -> struct B
...: struct DD -> struct D2 -> struct B
I don't know if changing this kind of output is a breaking change, though? I do
know some tooling parses this output.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D123878/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D123878
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
