RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jul 21 12:30:12 PDT 2020 · https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143602.html

> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> A question of preference came up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D83588 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83588> as to whether we ought to prefer emitting TableGen error messages with all of the information in a single diagnostic, or whether it makes sense to split things in an error+note style as seen in many clang diagnostics. TableGen doesnât use a DiagnosticsEngine, so the concept of a fatal note following an error is a bit new/foreign there, but perhaps something that makes sense adding.
> 
> Is there any precedence here for other internal llvm tooling (outside of clang)? Whatâs the general consensus here?

I think it makes a lot of sense to add this to TableGen.  It is a widely used tool and the QoI for its error messages could use a lot of improvement!

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200721/0e4f1466/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143602.html below:

[llvm-dev] [RFC] Preferred error/note style across non-clang tools, e.g. tablegen