From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19867 invoked by alias); 6 May 2008 18:41:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 19743 invoked by uid 48); 6 May 2008 18:40:29 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 18:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080506184029.19742.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug other/36150] colorize output of gcc In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "esigra at gmail dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00472.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #6 from esigra at gmail dot com 2008-05-06 18:40 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > I rather not add too much complexity to gcc diagnostic output. Which means no color. We did not demand that you do it personally. We just think that it would be a really good idea if someone would do it some time. Just how much complexity would it take? > colorgcc could be extended to get the correct coloring for the locazation. Sure it *could* be done, but it would require a version of colorgcc for each (combination of GCC version and) localization. Now we are talking about complexity! Localized output is inherently unsuitable for parsing. The existence of such an ugly hack is certainly no excuse for not allowing a proper implementation in GCC itself, where it belongs. And seriously, what is more efficcent, adding a colour code sequence to the string constans in GCC that says "warning:", "error:" etc or having a bunch of scripts for parsing the output of various GCC versions/localizations, recreating it with colour codes? What would distributions prefer to maintain? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36150