* diagnostics: %<%s%> vs. %qs
@ 2017-03-07 20:38 Roland Illig
2017-03-10 7:57 ` Manuel López-Ibáñez
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Roland Illig @ 2017-03-07 20:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
Hi,
in the diagnostics the %qs specifier is used in most of the cases. But
there are some cases left where the more complicated %<%s%> is used. Is
there a good reason to prefer the complicated spelling?
Same for %<%T%> and %qT, and similar letters.
Regards,
Roland
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: diagnostics: %<%s%> vs. %qs
2017-03-07 20:38 diagnostics: %<%s%> vs. %qs Roland Illig
@ 2017-03-10 7:57 ` Manuel López-Ibáñez
2017-03-10 17:26 ` Joseph Myers
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Manuel López-Ibáñez @ 2017-03-10 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roland Illig, GCC Development
On 07/03/17 20:38, Roland Illig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in the diagnostics the %qs specifier is used in most of the cases. But
> there are some cases left where the more complicated %<%s%> is used. Is
> there a good reason to prefer the complicated spelling?
>
> Same for %<%T%> and %qT, and similar letters.
'q' is a flag supported by some format codes but not all. Also, although
different parts of the compiler may support the same format codes (%T), not all
may have support for 'q' yet. Finally, there may be some code using %<%T%> that
predates the existence of '%qT'.
Ideally, we should move all the code to use 'q' and leave %<%> for specific
cases like quoting text: "%<--help%>"
Any help on this is appreciated:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted#Basics:_Contributing_to_GCC_in_10_easy_steps
Cheers,
Manuel.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: diagnostics: %<%s%> vs. %qs
2017-03-10 7:57 ` Manuel López-Ibáñez
@ 2017-03-10 17:26 ` Joseph Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Joseph Myers @ 2017-03-10 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Manuel López-Ibáñez; +Cc: Roland Illig, GCC Development
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 951 bytes --]
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 07/03/17 20:38, Roland Illig wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > in the diagnostics the %qs specifier is used in most of the cases. But
> > there are some cases left where the more complicated %<%s%> is used. Is
> > there a good reason to prefer the complicated spelling?
> >
> > Same for %<%T%> and %qT, and similar letters.
>
> 'q' is a flag supported by some format codes but not all. Also, although
> different parts of the compiler may support the same format codes (%T), not
> all may have support for 'q' yet. Finally, there may be some code using %<%T%>
> that predates the existence of '%qT'.
The 'q' flag is part of the generic pretty-print.c:pp_format formatting.
Thus, everything using the generic pretty-printing can handle the 'q' flag
(whereas %T requires a function with support for the tree formats as well
as the base class ones).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-10 17:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-03-07 20:38 diagnostics: %<%s%> vs. %qs Roland Illig
2017-03-10 7:57 ` Manuel López-Ibáñez
2017-03-10 17:26 ` Joseph Myers
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).