http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #37 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-13
11:50:33 UTC ---
I think for Richard's example a nice compromise would be:
t.C: In function 'int main()':
t.C:5:6: error: no matching function for call to 'f(int)'
f(1);
^
note: candidates are:
t.C:1:6: note: void f()
t.C:1:6: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided
void f(); void f(int,int);
^
t.C:1:17: note: void f(int, int)
t.C:1:17: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
void f(); void f(int,int);
^
That includes all the relevant information but removes the duplication caused
by printing the same source code and caret after each pair of notes, and the
whitespace on the "candidates are" line instead of location info does help make
it look less cluttered. GCC diagnostics do tend to look more densely packed
than some other compilers. Caret diagnostics change that, but it's not
necessarily an improvement if they just space out every line with duplicated
snippets of source and carets.
