[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: new compile command doesn't coalesce errors on the same line

From: Daniel Pfeiffer
Subject: Re: new compile command doesn't coalesce errors on the same line
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:33:02 +0100

Hi Miles,

I'm not sure a compiler with buggy messages should force the default value for
compilation-skip-visited.  But gcc is probably the most frequently used
program inside compile, so I'd already accepted what looks like the majority
verdict, of making this option be t.  For those who would like to set it to
nil, here's an example of four messages pertaining to one line, and only two
are directly related:

$ perl -we '$x = foo; print "$y\n"'
Unquoted string "foo" may clash with future reserved word at -e line 1.
Name "main::y" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1.
Name "main::x" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1.
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at -e line 1.

Miles Bader <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 07:41:37AM +0100, Daniel Pfeiffer wrote:
> > > Meanwhile, to the extent I can figure it out, I think this is indeed
> > > something else.  Let's just change the code so as to treat
> > > contiguous errors as one.
> > 
> > How contiguous do they have to be?  How many lines apart may they be? 
> > Keep this in mind: Where the old compile was bound to line-beginnings, the
> > new one can match a location anywhere on a line, even several different
> > kinds on the same line as in
> >
> > What would we gain?  Why would I want to go to the same spot again if it
> > is mentioned 3 lines down, but not when it is mentioned on the next line?
> It has to _at least_ handle correctly the cases the old compile command did.

And those are?  I asked some clear questions.  What is it you want that my
option can not give you?  And how do you want to handle the example I gave
(recognizing multiple locations on a line), which you didn't answer?

> Geez, I'm beginning to think it would be easier just to put the old one
> back.

Geez, you've got your very constructive day again!  The old one was awful, not
differentiating an error from a warning or info, clueless about multiple
locations on a line, randomly pretending there's no error on the current line
even though it's highlighted or sometimes even going to a wrong file...

coralament / best Grötens / liebe Grüße / best regards / elkorajn salutojn
Daniel Pfeiffer

lerne / learn / apprends / läramå / ucz się    Esperanto:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]