https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93859
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |diagnostic
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > git blame for the change which added the diagnostics and git log for that
> > change should usually help to identify the test.
>
> My strategy was simpler than "git blame". It was: "take the longest chain of
> literal words from the diagnostic, and search for them". To me, my strategy
> felt less time-consuming, therefore I didn't even think about using "git
> blame".
`git blame` is already pretty darn simple, plus it has the added benefit of
giving you someone to CC on your bug report, so you can have them explain their
original intent, and possibly fix it
>
> In my opinion this simple strategy should work as well. It also means the
> tests get more expressive since the dg-warning comments are self-describing.
>
> As I already said in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93857#c4,
> the words "omitted middle operand" appear in more than once diagnostic,
> which makes it unnecessarily difficult to relate the tests to the diagnostic.
