On 9 April 2012 12:43, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>        * c-common.h (c_common_initialize_diagnostics): Likewise.
> Make the comment less personal; we don't who "I" is in "I'm putting them here"
> in three months (nor should we have to know.)  I suggest to just remove
> that comment.

That comment has been there for ages, I just moved it around. But I am
happy to remove it.

> This deletion moves the initialization of cxx_pp to 
> cxx_initialize_diagnostics.
> That is the wrong place.  As the comment says, cxx_pp is not for
> diagnostics, so it should be initialized separately -- if possible as
> early as possible.
>>        * cp-tree.h (init_error): Delete.
>>        * lex.c (cxx_init): Do not call init_error.
> this should still call a routine that initializes cxx_pp.

Where? cxx_initialize_diagnostics is run earlier than cxx_init, so it
is now initialized earlier than before. Moreover, by putting both
together, it is clear to anyone that there are two pretty-printers,
and the comment clarifies what the second is for. I understand that
init_error means "initialize_error routines", and indeed it contained
code initializing diagnostics.

However, if the above does not convince you. What about renaming
init_error to cxx_pp_init, and move the cxx_pp initialization there so
it is clear that this function is ONLY to initialize cxx_pp and not
for anything else?

Is the patch OK with the above changes?

Reply via email to