[Bug c/84887] missing semicolon: further improvements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2018-06-17 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3) > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2) > > link to thread on reddit? > > > > Never mind, I found it: > https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/84oizv/ > usability_improvements_in_gcc_8/dvr93d4/ > I'll confirm this bug after finding the Hacker News one, too. Actually never mind again; that link isn't necessary to confirm this bug. ASSIGNED since there's an assignee.
[Bug c/84887] missing semicolon: further improvements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887 --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2) > link to thread on reddit? > Never mind, I found it: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/84oizv/usability_improvements_in_gcc_8/dvr93d4/ I'll confirm this bug after finding the Hacker News one, too.
[Bug c/84887] missing semicolon: further improvements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0) > > However, as suggested e.g. by oridb on Reddit, it would be more readable to > talk about the previous logical unit, and emit: > > t.c: In function ‘test’: > t.c:3:12: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘42’ token >return 42 > ^ > ; > > or somesuch: e.g. should we highlight the preceding token as a secondary > range, which would give: > > t.c: In function ‘test’: > t.c:3:12: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘42’ token >return 42 > ~~^ > ; > > (I'm not sure either way) link to thread on reddit? (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1) > User "jancsika" on Hacker News points out: > > [...] the output is visually confusing-- you have an arrow pointing one's > > eye to the missing semicolon, but the underlined referent token is > > two line breaks away from it. Underlining the preceding "i" would put > > the emphasized token and missing semi right next to each other. > > and I agree, presumably we should print either just: > > q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘i’ > int i > ^ > > or: > > q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘i’ > int i > ~^ link to thread on Hacker News?
[Bug c/84887] missing semicolon: further improvements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Similarly, in : int i int j; as of gcc 8 we now print: q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘int’ int i ^ ; int j; ~~~ User "jancsika" on Hacker News points out: > [...] the output is visually confusing-- you have an arrow pointing one's > eye to the missing semicolon, but the underlined referent token is > two line breaks away from it. Underlining the preceding "i" would put > the emphasized token and missing semi right next to each other. and I agree, presumably we should print either just: q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘i’ int i ^ or: q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘i’ int i ~^
