Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:29:44AM -0700, Devang Patel wrote:
And string does not answer localization issue, however for numbers at least
there is one precedent to follow.
I think this discussion has gotten totally sidetracked.
I agree.
When I said
I was in favor of strings, I didn't mean messages that would ever be
displayed! It's the difference between DW_TAG_compile_unit and
"compile-unit".
It is no more work for the producer or for the consumer, it's clearer,
and conflicts are much less likely. The only downside is that it's
larger. But with string duplicate elimination - your linker can
do that, I hope - it's only larger by a trivial amount.
I am not too tied with initial positions of this proposal (see my
discussions with Tom) however in this case trade offs are not
favoring one or other with wide margin. Plus if you see my last
message to Tom in this thread, we are talking about using
_msg to say "highlight this text". I think it makes more sense
to not use strings in this situation.
Anyway, time to focus discussion on other open questions.
1) Steven B. off line suggested that we need some mechanism to
identify compiler phase. I agree, it is useful to filter messages.
What do other people think about it ?
2) Do we need to enforce source location ordering in diary messages ?
-
Devang
