On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:30 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > 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 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! > > I'm in agreement here. Also incremental is very welcome. -eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200721/d1b7ff95/attachment.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4