llvm dev - Mar 2017 - [RFC] improvements to LLVM diagnostic infrastructure

Hi all,

I'm working on improvements to diagnostics handling in LLVM, specifically
for the benefit of the (integrated) assembler. The goal is to support options
such as -Werror, -w, and -W<warning> for files assembled with clang and
inline assembly. Clang already has support for these options but does not apply
them to diagnostics originating from (inline) assembly.

I plan to add an LLVMDiagnosticsEngine class that takes responsibility for
handling diagnostics options (superseding parts of SourceMgr and LLVMContext).
The diagnostics themselves will be defined in TableGen (just like in clang).

Currently, diagnostics are passed through a SourceMgr to get location info and
then passed on to a diagnostics handler for printing (if it exists). This is
usually wrapped in Warning() and Error() functions.

For example in ARMAsmParser.cpp:

        Error(ImmLoc, "invalid immediate shift value");
which eventually calls SourceMgr::PrintMessage.

This would change to (incrementally throughout the code-base) :
       Diag(ImmLoc, err_arm_invalid_immediate_shift);
and pass through LLVMDiagnosticsEngine to get the diagnostic message and
severity (defined in TableGen, similar to Diagnostic*Kinds.td in clang).

Initially, LLVMDiagnosticsEngine will be a smaller, simpler version of
clang's DiagnosticEngine. Over time, I would expect more features of
clang's diagnostics to migrate to LLVM, where possible, to improve
diagnostics for all the LLVM tools.


I intend to implement the necessary infrastructure and convert a (small) number
of diagnostics.  Further conversions can be done incrementally.

Any comments on this approach? Is this the right direction for diagnostics in
LLVM? Suggestions more than welcome!

Thanks,
Sanne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170313/49b7bc0a/attachment.html>

Hi Sanne,
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Sanne Wouda via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm working on improvements to diagnostics handling in LLVM,
specifically for the benefit of the (integrated) assembler. The goal is to
support options such as -Werror, -w, and -W<warning> for files assembled
with clang and inline assembly. Clang already has support for these options but
does not apply them to diagnostics originating from (inline) assembly.
I am not sure I get what you want to do.
That infrastructure already exists as far as I can tell. Look at
BackendConsumer::DiagnosticHandlerImpl.

For historical reasons, it is possible the inline assembly stuff does not use it
though.

Cheers,
-Quentin
> 
> I plan to add an LLVMDiagnosticsEngine class that takes responsibility for
handling diagnostics options (superseding parts of SourceMgr and LLVMContext).
> The diagnostics themselves will be defined in TableGen (just like in
clang).
> 
> Currently, diagnostics are passed through a SourceMgr to get location info
and then passed on to a diagnostics handler for printing (if it exists). This is
usually wrapped in Warning() and Error() functions.
> 
> For example in ARMAsmParser.cpp:
>  
>         Error(ImmLoc, "invalid immediate shift value");
> which eventually calls SourceMgr::PrintMessage.
> 
> This would change to (incrementally throughout the code-base) :
>        Diag(ImmLoc, err_arm_invalid_immediate_shift);
> and pass through LLVMDiagnosticsEngine to get the diagnostic message and
severity (defined in TableGen, similar to Diagnostic*Kinds.td in clang).
> 
> Initially, LLVMDiagnosticsEngine will be a smaller, simpler version of
clang's DiagnosticEngine. Over time, I would expect more features of
clang's diagnostics to migrate to LLVM, where possible, to improve
diagnostics for all the LLVM tools.
> 
>  
> I intend to implement the necessary infrastructure and convert a (small)
number of diagnostics.  Further conversions can be done incrementally.
> 
> Any comments on this approach? Is this the right direction for diagnostics
in LLVM? Suggestions more than welcome!
> 
> Thanks,
> Sanne
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
<http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170313/ac1d511b/attachment.html>

Hi Quentin,

Thank you for the pointer to BackendConsumer::DiagnosticsHandlerImpl. I'll
have to investigate if it would fulfill my requirements.

If so, I'd be looking to convert the assembler to use it (and improving it
where necessary). Do you happen to know the reasons why the assembler isn't
using this bit of LLVM?

Thanks!
Sanne


From: Quentin Colombet
Sent: Monday, 13 March, 15:22
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [RFC] improvements to LLVM diagnostic infrastructure
To: Sanne Wouda
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org, cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org, nd

Hi Sanne,

On Mar 13, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Sanne Wouda via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Hi all,

I'm working on improvements to diagnostics handling in LLVM, specifically
for the benefit of the (integrated) assembler. The goal is to support options
such as -Werror, -w, and -W<warning> for files assembled with clang and
inline assembly. Clang already has support for these options but does not apply
them to diagnostics originating from (inline) assembly.

I am not sure I get what you want to do.

That infrastructure already exists as far as I can tell. Look at
BackendConsumer::DiagnosticHandlerImpl.

For historical reasons, it is possible the inline assembly stuff does not use it
though.

Cheers,

-Quentin

I plan to add an LLVMDiagnosticsEngine class that takes responsibility for
handling diagnostics options (superseding parts of SourceMgr and LLVMContext).

The diagnostics themselves will be defined in TableGen (just like in clang).

Currently, diagnostics are passed through a SourceMgr to get location info and
then passed on to a diagnostics handler for printing (if it exists). This is
usually wrapped in Warning() and Error() functions.

For example in ARMAsmParser.cpp:



        Error(ImmLoc, "invalid immediate shift value");

which eventually calls SourceMgr::PrintMessage.

This would change to (incrementally throughout the code-base) :

       Diag(ImmLoc, err_arm_invalid_immediate_shift);

and pass through LLVMDiagnosticsEngine to get the diagnostic message and
severity (defined in TableGen, similar to Diagnostic*Kinds.td in clang).

Initially, LLVMDiagnosticsEngine will be a smaller, simpler version of
clang's DiagnosticEngine. Over time, I would expect more features of
clang's diagnostics to migrate to LLVM, where possible, to improve
diagnostics for all the LLVM tools.



I intend to implement the necessary infrastructure and convert a (small) number
of diagnostics.  Further conversions can be done incrementally.

Any comments on this approach? Is this the right direction for diagnostics in
LLVM? Suggestions more than welcome!

Thanks,

Sanne

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170313/2b156c15/attachment-0001.html>