I've committed a slightly rewritten version of the error messages
to trunk as rev.269717, see attached.
Thanks for the review and the comments.
Harald
On 03/12/19 23:19, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi Harald,
>
>> how about the attached version? It is quite verbose and produces
>> messages like
>>
> Le 13 mars 2019 à 13:39, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I am not so convinced that "plain english" messages are the way to go,
> even if they appear better readable at first sight, if conciseness is
> lost.
Well, "Syntax error" is concise, but not really helpful!
> The main r
ht, which is why I think the related
error messages should be more technical and concise.
I'll think for another day or two.
Thanks,
Harald
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. März 2019 um 23:19 Uhr
> Von: "Thomas Koenig"
> An: "Harald Anlauf" , "Dominique d'Humiè
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:19:07PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi Harald,
>
> > how about the attached version? It is quite verbose and produces
> > messages like
> >
> > Error: Expected list of 'lower-bound-expr:' or list of
> > 'lower-bound-expr:upper-bound-expr' at (1)
>
> I think this way
Hi Harald,
how about the attached version? It is quite verbose and produces
messages like
Error: Expected list of 'lower-bound-expr:' or list of
'lower-bound-expr:upper-bound-expr' at (1)
I think this way of specifying error messages
+#define BOUNDS_SPEC_LIST "list of %"
...
+
Hi Dominique,
how about the attached version? It is quite verbose and produces
messages like
Error: Expected list of 'lower-bound-expr:' or list of
'lower-bound-expr:upper-bound-expr' at (1)
(I did check other compilers. E.g. Intel and Oracle do print messages
using the 'legalese'. But user-f
Hi Harald,
The patch looks good to me (although I did not test it), however I don’t like
the standard legalese in the error messages.
IMO
R1035 bounds-spec is lower-bound-expr :
R1036 bounds-remapping is lower-bound-expr : upper-bound-exp
should be rephrased in plain English.
Thanks for the w
The PR rightly complains about bad error messages for invalid pointer
assignments. I've tried to adjust the logic slightly so that we now
print error messages that should explain more clearly what is wrong.
This required adjustment of 2 testcases, one of which also had an
incorrect comment.
OK f
