Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "496f7e2f".
2013 Oct 07
0
[LLVMdev] [lld] Diagnostics
I think we need a straw man proposal to start iterating on. Clang’s diagnostics has lots of good features. But is has lots that a linker does not need. For instance, the line/column number does not make sense for a linker. Clang errors/warnings are mostly about the source language which is pretty standard across different platforms. Other than multiple-defined and undefined errors, most of
2013 Oct 08
2
[LLVMdev] [lld] Diagnostics
...h so. We've also had some great experience using debug info (when
present) to produce much more detailed and user-friendly diagnostics in the
linker.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131007/496f7e2f/attachment.html>
2013 Oct 07
5
[LLVMdev] [lld] Diagnostics
I think having diagnostics interface similar to Clang's would be good. I
think the total number of defined warnings would be much smaller than Clang.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote:
> Ping ?
>
>
> On 10/4/2013 10:41 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> lld doesnot have a Diagnostics interface, It