From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5243 invoked by alias); 23 May 2003 15:33:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5233 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 15:33:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.153) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 May 2003 15:33:53 -0000 Received: from twcny.rr.com (syr-24-24-18-104.twcny.rr.com [24.24.18.104]) by ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h4NFXrik007690; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3ECE3F58.7020101@twcny.rr.com> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:34:00 -0000 From: Nathanael Nerode User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Volker Reichelt CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Suggestion for new keywords in bugzilla References: <200305230949.h4N9nNNZ018474@relay.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <200305230949.h4N9nNNZ018474@relay.rwth-aachen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02097.txt.bz2 Volker Reichelt wrote: > Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > >>>>* diagnostic (for error messages/warnings that are misleading or broken >>>> and superfluous/missing warnings) >> >>I actually thought that there should be two keywords for this: >> >>missing-diagnostic (There should be a warning, but there isn't.) >>misleading-diagnostic (There's a warning which shouldn't be there, or >>should be replaced by a different warning.) > > > I don't think that we really need two keywords, because the volume is low: > We now have thirty-something PRs with the stamp "[diagnostic]" in the > summary line. They all fit on a single screen. And even if the number > doubled, the number would still be small compared to "ice-on-(in)valid-code" > for example. Missing diagnostics and misleading diagnostics are often very different kinds of issues requiring different skills to fix, which is why I thought the distinction might be useful. I defer to the opinion of this list. :-) > And we still have the summary line where we can give information like > "misleading". > > Btw, thanks for adding the keyword "error-recovery"! I saw consensus. :-) > Regards, > Volker