On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 07:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> And please help
>> re-assessing the situation wrt the other front-ends *today* not in the
>> stone age.
>
> EDG always wraps diagnostics at ~80 columns.
I did not mention the name of the co
On 10/17/2011 07:31 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
clang wraps diagnostics at $COLUMNS when stderr is going to a
terminal, and doesn't wrap otherwise.
The clang behavior seems like the right way to go.
Thanks Jason. I'll see how to implement this.
Paolo.
On 10/17/2011 07:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
And please help
re-assessing the situation wrt the other front-ends *today* not in the
stone age.
EDG always wraps diagnostics at ~80 columns.
clang wraps diagnostics at $COLUMNS when stderr is going to a terminal,
and doesn't wrap otherwise.
The
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 01:44 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:26 AM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would **strongly** oppose any change to 72 not strongly
>>> motivated at least by a comparison with other high quality f
On 10/17/2011 01:44 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:26 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I would **strongly** oppose any change to 72 not strongly
motivated at least by a comparison with other high quality front-ends
I love it when you make arguments like this. It makes me smile,
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:26 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> I would **strongly** oppose any change to 72 not strongly
> motivated at least by a comparison with other high quality front-ends
I love it when you make arguments like this. It makes me smile, and
I like smiling when I just get off bed :-)
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:08 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> > The initial patch, split between rev. 31343 and 31999 indeed added
>>
>> Thanks for helping tracking history.
>>
>> > + /*
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 01:16 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/17/2011 12:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> Thus clearly the documentation is wrong ;)
;-)
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:08 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > The initial patch, split between rev. 31343 and 31999 indeed added
>
> Thanks for helping tracking history.
>
> > + /* Enable automatic line wrapping by default */
> > + set_message_
On 10/17/2011 01:24 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Again this argument is making a sort of revisionism. The 72 default
was added to g++, and other front-ends (in reality at the time, only C
could be affected) decided not to. Over the years, we have moved to
share more and more codes with other fro
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 01:08 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> The initial patch, split between rev. 31343 and 31999 indeed added
>>
>> + /* Enable automatic line wrapping by default */
>> + set_message_length (72);
>>
>> to C++ lang_decode_option.
On 10/17/2011 01:16 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/17/2011 12:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Thus clearly the documentation is wrong ;)
;-)
Not necessarily. Paolo does not say why that line was added.
I don't remember adding that line
On 10/17/2011 01:08 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
The initial patch, split between rev. 31343 and 31999 indeed added
+ /* Enable automatic line wrapping by default */
+ set_message_length (72);
to C++ lang_decode_option. Later it got appearantly lost somehow,
probably during some of the Great
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 12:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>
>>> Thus clearly the documentation is wrong ;)
>>
>> ;-)
>> Not necessarily. Paolo does not say why that line was added.
>> I don't remember adding that line to change the default.
>
> Inde
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:08 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> The initial patch, split between rev. 31343 and 31999 indeed added
Thanks for helping tracking history.
> + /* Enable automatic line wrapping by default */
> + set_message_length (72);
>
> to C++ lang_decode_option. Later it got appe
On 10/17/2011 12:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Thus clearly the documentation is wrong ;)
;-)
Not necessarily. Paolo does not say why that line was added.
I don't remember adding that line to change the default.
Indeed, as far as I can see, you added that line while *preserving* the
existing
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 12:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long
>>> standing reality, would be a small improvement
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/17/2011 12:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > FWIW, I still
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2011 12:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini
>> > wrote:
>> > > FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long
>
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 12:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini
> > wrote:
> > > FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long
> > > standing reality, would be a small improvement. I'm not goin
On 10/17/2011 12:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long
standing reality, would be a small improvement. I'm not going to further
insist, anyway.
It isn't improvement.
The impro
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>> FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long
>>> standing reality, would be a small i
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
>> FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long
>> standing reality, would be a small improvement. I'm not going to further
>> insist, anyway.
>
> It isn
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
>> FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long
>> standing reality, would be a small improvement. I'm not going to further
>> insist, anyway.
>
> The ori
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long
> standing reality, would be a small improvement. I'm not going to further
> insist, anyway.
It isn't improvement.
The improvement would be to restore the documented def
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
> FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long
> standing reality, would be a small improvement. I'm not going to further
> insist, anyway.
The original patch is ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Paolo.
>
FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long
standing reality, would be a small improvement. I'm not going to further
insist, anyway.
Paolo.
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2011 12:28 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Paolo Carlini
wr
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2011 12:28 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Paolo Carlini
>>> wrote:
Hi,
in this simple documentation PR, Tom no
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 12:28 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> in this simple documentation PR, Tom noticed that we have a (very long
>>> standing) inconsistency between th
On 10/16/2011 12:28 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
in this simple documentation PR, Tom noticed that we have a (very long
standing) inconsistency between the default value of -fmessage-length for
C++ as documented and as implemented: in fa
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in this simple documentation PR, Tom noticed that we have a (very long
> standing) inconsistency between the default value of -fmessage-length for
> C++ as documented and as implemented: in fact it's 0 in cxx-pretty-print.c,
> like al
Hi,
in this simple documentation PR, Tom noticed that we have a (very long
standing) inconsistency between the default value of -fmessage-length
for C++ as documented and as implemented: in fact it's 0 in
cxx-pretty-print.c, like all the other front-ends. At the time of the PR
people briefly
33 matches
Mail list logo
