On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 22:04, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/23/2011 06:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Well, so what? This test case does not represent actual or even likely
user code. I don't think we need to contort ourselves to generate all
possible errors for erroneous
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:47, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
That seems reasonable to me.
Yes. I think Steven proposed this as
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes:
So, I think we need to re-think where to check for seen_errors().
Bailing out too early is disabling some valid diagnostics. For
instance,
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/asm-7.c:
$ cat -n
On 06/23/2011 06:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Well, so what? This test case does not represent actual or even likely
user code. I don't think we need to contort ourselves to generate all
possible errors for erroneous input. As many errors as reasonable, yes.
All possible errors, no.
I
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/17/2011 10:55 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 14:47, Diego Novillodnovi...@google.com wrote:
if (flag_syntax_only || flag_wpa)
return;
to
if (flag_syntax_only || flag_wpa || errorcount 0)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:47, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
That seems reasonable to me.
Yes. I think Steven proposed this as well at some point.
Alright, thanks.
Unsurprisingly, this produces 152
I am looking at an internally reported bug against 4.6 that starts
with something like this:
$ cat a.cc
int bar(int);
struct B {
B(int);
~B() __attribute__((noreturn));
};
int foo(void)
{
B::B f(10);
return 0;
}
int bar(int j)
{
B(10);
}
$ ./cc1plus -Wall -Werror a.cc
int foo()
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 14:47, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
if (flag_syntax_only || flag_wpa)
return;
to
if (flag_syntax_only || flag_wpa || errorcount 0)
return;
To clarify. It would be 'seen_error ()' instead of 'errorcount 0',
but the idea is the same.
Diego.
On 06/17/2011 10:55 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 14:47, Diego Novillodnovi...@google.com wrote:
if (flag_syntax_only || flag_wpa)
return;
to
if (flag_syntax_only || flag_wpa || errorcount 0)
return;
To clarify. It would be 'seen_error ()' instead of
