dexonsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46834#1102407, @rsmith wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46834#1102395, @dexonsmith wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46834#1102391, @rsmith wrote: > > > > > The policy certainly seems designed around the CLI use case. For > > > serialized diagnostics, it would make sense to either serialize the > > > snippet or enough information that the snippet can be reconstructed. And > > > if that can't be done, or fails to satisfy some other use case, then we > > > should discuss how we proceed -- for instance, we could consider having > > > different diagnostic messages for the case where we have a snippet and > > > for the case where we do not. > > > > > > Right. There are places in the IDE where there is a condensed view of all > > diagnostics (like a Vim location list), and others where the diagnostics > > are shown inline with the sources. I think what we want is an optional > > auxiliary record/field in a diagnostic with that contains context for when > > the source context is missing, and then the IDE can choose which to > > display. It's optional because most diagnostics are good enough as is for > > location lists. > > > That sounds good to me. I think it would also make sense to use the alternate > form for the CLI case if the user is using `-fno-caret-diagnostics` for some > reason. Yes that sounds right. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D46834 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
