Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2(pesnta.1.2) 9/5/84; site scc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!pesnta!scc!steiny From: steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Compiler Error Checking and Error Messages - How much is too much? Message-ID: <551@scc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 16:20:28 EDT Article-I.D.: scc.551 Posted: Sat Sep 14 16:20:28 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 12:15:26 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Don Steiny Software Lines: 45 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** *** I have seen C compilers that do Pascal-like things and try to point to the line and position of the error. My opinion is that this is inappropriate. I have not had any trouble locating errors from the error message I get from the terse compilers on version 6 & 7. I even think that the 4.1 and 4.2 compilers are a bit wordy, but I don't mind too much. I used a compiler once that made assignment of pointer to an int a FATAL ERROR. Note that on this system both pointers and ints were 32 bits. Since the compiler on the system I generally use, a Wollongong V7 port, does not even complain about it, it seems to me that making it completely illegal might break much exisiting code. It certainly broke some of mine. It seems like a strange thing to do to me, but is it a bug or a useful feature? It would force future code to be more portable, but it would break some existing C code. I can think of two solutions. One would be to have flags for the compiler that allowed compilation of code from older compilers. Compilers could also have a verbose or non-verbose mode. Another solution would be to have the compiler do the best job it can compiling the code for the specific machine it is for and have lint or a lint like tool do all the portability checking. I favor the second solution. But if flags are added, I believe that non-verbose mode would be the most useful default. I find the verbose messages confusing, all I need is the line number and I can spot the error right away. I think that using separate programs fits more in the UNIX philosophy of separate tools that can be combined by users. I would be interested to know what others think about it. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382