On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2012 12:43, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
* c-common.h (c_common_initialize_diagnostics): Likewise.
Make the comment less personal; we don't who I is in I'm putting them
here
in three months (nor should we have to know.) I suggest to just remove
that comment.
That comment has been there for ages, I just moved it around. But I am
happy to remove it.
yes, thanks.
This deletion moves the initialization of cxx_pp to
cxx_initialize_diagnostics.
That is the wrong place. As the comment says, cxx_pp is not for
diagnostics, so it should be initialized separately -- if possible as
early as possible.
* cp-tree.h (init_error): Delete.
* lex.c (cxx_init): Do not call init_error.
this should still call a routine that initializes cxx_pp.
Where?
Maybe in a dedicated function called construct_cxx_pp(), called
from cxx_init?
cxx_initialize_diagnostics is run earlier than cxx_init, so it
is now initialized earlier than before. Moreover, by putting both
together, it is clear to anyone that there are two pretty-printers,
and the comment clarifies what the second is for. I understand that
init_error means initialize_error routines, and indeed it contained
code initializing diagnostics.
since it has nothing to do with diagnostics, it is better not to place
its initialization there. Otherwise, in 3 months somewhere will come
and complain that the diagnostics and pretty printers are hard to debug
etc ;-)
However, if the above does not convince you. What about renaming
init_error to cxx_pp_init, and move the cxx_pp initialization there so
it is clear that this function is ONLY to initialize cxx_pp and not
for anything else?
that or the suggestion above.
Is the patch OK with the above changes?
I appreciate your impatience but I would like to look at the revised
version first.