https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33952
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33952
--- Comment #5 from Eelis ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> Eelis: FWIW, gcc has a -fmax-errors=n option; I wonder if setting that to 1
> might be a better fit for geordi? (just thinking aloud here).
It also truncates the error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33952
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-31 09:20 ---
Apart from the issue regarding that the last two errors should be notes this
is really impossible to "fix" if -Wfatal-errors should continue to work as
designed. That is, the only way would be to annotate all _calle
--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugzilla at contacts dot eelis dot net 2007-10-31
00:44 ---
Then perhaps I ought to explain what I'm using -Wfatal-errors for.
I wrote an IRC bot called geordi ( http://www.eelis.net/geordi ) that accepts
lines of C++ code, compiles them with g++, and either rep
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-30 22:21 ---
Well the second error: really should be notes. But really this is doing what
-Wfatal-errors is designed to do. -Wfatal-errors is really was only designed
to help out reducing testcases and nothing else.
--
htt
