comp.unix.xenix

[J.T. Conklin]

In article <1123 at vector.Dallas.TX.US> chip at chinacat.Lonestar.ORG (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
>Oh yeah, don't terse error messages stink.  For example, on one system
>I get such wonderfully helpful diagnostic messages like this:
>
>ccom: Error: foo.c, line 7: foobar undefined
>          		(--( 	(&_iob[1]))->_cnt < 0 ?
>_flsbuf((unsigned char) ((foobar)), ( 	(&_iob[1]))) :
>(int) (*( 	(&_iob[1]))->_ptr++ = (unsigned char) ((foobar))));
>      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------------------------------^

I guess that's the price you have pay to have a separate pre-processor.
If it was integrated to the compiler, perhaps the compiler could cashe
the line and report the following:

ccom: Error: foo.c, line 7: foobar undefined
        putchar(foobar);
      ----------^

then again, it would probably be too much of a performance hit.

>Besides, be careful what you ask for.  You might get it.  My guess is
>that folks who want compilers to correct dumb mistakes have never worked
>with one which did.

Although the one compiler I've used that repaired dumb mistakes did
an admirable job,  I'm unsure of whether or not I'd want to use one
today.  I would be certain of that if every compiler had adequate
diagnostics.

If the choice is between terse diagnostics like Microsofts, or the
potentially verbose diagnotistics like the MIPS compiler, I assure
you I'd take verbosity.

    --jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin
	...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!jtc, jtc at wimse