On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> "Manuel" == Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Manuel> Here is a patch that give us caret diagnostics in C/C++. > > > > Nice. > > > > Manuel> The third approach would be to store an offset and when > > Manuel> generating diagnostics, reopen the file, fseek to the offset > > Manuel> and print that line. > > > > I tend to favor this, provided that the performance is not too awful. > > But maybe this is painful due to iconv translation? > > > > Ian suggested that we delete this information after the FE is > > finished. This makes sense, I think, from a memory-saving > > perspective. But, that means we will get different kinds of error > > output depending on when a diagnostic is emitted, which I think is > > pretty unfriendly -- it exposes implementation details of gcc to the > > user. > > > > So, the reason I favor trying the reopen-and-seek approach is that it > > would let us keep this information around and be consistent in what we > > print. > > > > What do you think of that? > > I think we support input from stdin, at least qemu used to work that way ;) > > If you want to improve the memory situation maybe storing the input > in compressed format in memory is ok. (Or compressing the cpp token > stream if we want to support diagnostics on the preprocessed output, > which I'd love to have in some cases)
I would not feel bad if we don't provide caret diagnostics for `input from stdin'. `stdin' is already specially weird anyway :-)
