On 07/03/2008, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "Manuel" == Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Manuel> The third approach would be to store an offset and when > Manuel> generating diagnostics, reopen the file, fseek to the offset > Manuel> and print that line. > > I tend to favor this, provided that the performance is not too awful. > But maybe this is painful due to iconv translation?
How should a file be properly opened within GCC? I find the code in libcpp/files.c pretty confusing and also I am not interested in parsing the file, so some of the conversions it makes are probably superflous (or perhaps even impossible when calling from expand_location). > How about -fshow-caret instead of -fdiagnostics-show-caret? > (By analogy with -fshow-column.) Well, we have -fdiagnostics-show-option and -fdiagnostics-show-location. So 2 versus 1. ;-) That said, I would also prefer -fshow-option and -fshow-location. > With this implementation I think cpp will not emit caret diagnostics. > It ought to as well, IMO -- consistency is important here, I think. > Maybe now it is time to switch cpp to use gcc's diagnostic > machinery... I think all the prerequisites to this have been met, > though I am not sure. cpp has the buffer and current position available when it emits diagnostics with column information, so printing the caret is certainly possible without much hassle. I agree that switching cpp to use gcc's diagnostics will avoid code duplication and ensure consistency, yet that is an orthogonal issue, it shouldn't be a prerequisite for caret diagnostics. Cheers, Manuel.
