llvm dev - Jul 2020 - [RFC] Preferred error/note style across non-clang tools, e.g. tablegen

A question of preference came up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D83588
<https://reviews.llvm.org/D83588> as to whether we ought to prefer
emitting TableGen error messages with all of the information in a single
diagnostic, or whether it makes sense to split things in an error+note style as
seen in many clang diagnostics. TableGen doesn’t use a DiagnosticsEngine, so the
concept of a fatal note following an error is a bit new/foreign there, but
perhaps something that makes sense adding.

Is there any precedence here for other internal llvm tooling (outside of clang)?
What’s the general consensus here?


Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200721/5e18e019/attachment.html>

> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> A question of preference came up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D83588
<https://reviews.llvm.org/D83588> as to whether we ought to prefer
emitting TableGen error messages with all of the information in a single
diagnostic, or whether it makes sense to split things in an error+note style as
seen in many clang diagnostics. TableGen doesn’t use a DiagnosticsEngine, so the
concept of a fatal note following an error is a bit new/foreign there, but
perhaps something that makes sense adding.
> 
> Is there any precedence here for other internal llvm tooling (outside of
clang)? What’s the general consensus here?
I think it makes a lot of sense to add this to TableGen.  It is a widely used
tool and the QoI for its error messages could use a lot of improvement!

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200721/0e4f1466/attachment.html>

> On Jul 21, 2020, at 14:30, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
>> 
>> A question of preference came up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D83588
<https://reviews.llvm.org/D83588> as to whether we ought to prefer
emitting TableGen error messages with all of the information in a single
diagnostic, or whether it makes sense to split things in an error+note style as
seen in many clang diagnostics. TableGen doesn’t use a DiagnosticsEngine, so the
concept of a fatal note following an error is a bit new/foreign there, but
perhaps something that makes sense adding.
>> 
>> Is there any precedence here for other internal llvm tooling (outside
of clang)? What’s the general consensus here?
> 
> I think it makes a lot of sense to add this to TableGen.  It is a widely
used tool and the QoI for its error messages could use a lot of improvement!
There is a lot of room from improvement in several details of TableGen. 
However, methinks that changes towards such a goal shouldn't be sneaked in
small doses.  Then it just adds more inconsistent error reporting to an already
inconsistent reporting.  If one wants to improve the error reporting in
TableGen, let one take it on himself this project, apart from one's other
patches.

__ 
Evandro Menezes ◊ SiFive ◊ Austin, TX

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200721/07b74fb6/attachment.html>

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:30 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> A question of preference came up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D83588 as to
> whether we ought to prefer emitting TableGen error messages with all of the
> information in a single diagnostic, or whether it makes sense to split
> things in an error+note style as seen in many clang diagnostics. TableGen
> doesn’t use a DiagnosticsEngine, so the concept of a fatal note following
> an error is a bit new/foreign there, but perhaps something that makes sense
> adding.
>
> Is there any precedence here for other internal llvm tooling (outside of
> clang)? What’s the general consensus here?
>
>
> I think it makes a lot of sense to add this to TableGen.  It is a widely
> used tool and the QoI for its error messages could use a lot of
improvement!
>
>
I'm in agreement here. Also incremental is very welcome.

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200721/d1b7ff95/attachment.html>