Re: [PATCH] Implement -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits

[Eelis]

On 2016-06-22 05:25, David Malcolm wrote:

Clang has an option -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits, which emits a
machine-readable version of the fixits, for use by IDEs.  (The only
IDE I know of that supports this format is Xcode [1]; does anyone
know of other IDEs supporting this?  I'd be very happy if someone
implemented Emacs support for it, or could point me at it).

This patch implements the option for gcc.  It seems prudent to be
compatible with Clang here, so I've deliberately used the same option
name and attempted to emulate the output format,


Thanks a lot for this! I now use this in geordi (http://eelis.net/geordi). 
Geordi already supported Clang's fix-its, and thanks to your taking care to use 
the same format, enabling it for GCC was a matter of adding the flag.

Cheers!

Re: [PATCH] Implement -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits

[Martin Liška]

On 06/22/2016 05:25 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> Clang has an option -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits, which emits a
> machine-readable version of the fixits, for use by IDEs.  (The only
> IDE I know of that supports this format is Xcode [1]; does anyone
> know of other IDEs supporting this?  I'd be very happy if someone
> implemented Emacs support for it, or could point me at it).

Hi.

I know that YCM ([1]) uses that in Fix it command ([2]).

Martin


[1] http://valloric.github.io/YouCompleteMe/
[2] http://valloric.github.io/YouCompleteMe/#refactoring-and-fixit-commands

Re: [PATCH] Implement -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits

[Mike Stump]

On Jun 21, 2016, at 8:25 PM, David Malcolm  wrote:
> I implemented tests using both -fself-test and DejaGnu.
> For the DejaGnu test coverage, I attempted to implement detection of the
> output strings via existing directives, but after several hours of
> failing, I instead implemented a new "dg-regexp" directive, which doesn't
> expect anything other than the given regexp.  If anyone can see a way
> to implement the tests using existing directives, I'll port to that.

> I need review of the proposed additions to gcc/testsuite/lib at least
> (the rest I believe I can self-approve, but another pair of eyes would
> be appreciated).

Test suite bits look fine; Ok.