https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
>
> However, as suggested e.g. by oridb on Reddit, it would be more readable to
> talk about the previous logical unit, and emit:
>
> t.c: In function ‘test’:
> t.c:3:12: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘42’ token
> return 42
> ^
> ;
>
> or somesuch: e.g. should we highlight the preceding token as a secondary
> range, which would give:
>
> t.c: In function ‘test’:
> t.c:3:12: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘42’ token
> return 42
> ~~^
> ;
>
> (I'm not sure either way)
link to thread on reddit?
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> User "jancsika" on Hacker News points out:
> > [...] the output is visually confusing-- you have an arrow pointing one's
> > eye to the missing semicolon, but the underlined referent token is
> > two line breaks away from it. Underlining the preceding "i" would put
> > the emphasized token and missing semi right next to each other.
>
> and I agree, presumably we should print either just:
>
> q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘i’
> int i
> ^
>
> or:
>
> q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ after ‘i’
> int i
> ~^
link to thread on Hacker News?
