Re: FYI: Buffered warnings.

[Alexandre Duret-Lutz]

>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

 Tom> Do we currently always issue errors in increasing order of line
 Tom> number?  

No.  Besides we don't issue line numbers for all diagnostics
(there is at least three FIXME: for this).

 Tom> If not, would it be desirable?  

I think it might be cleaner, though there are a few issues.

The diagnostics we output while processing Makefile.am are not
always related to Makefile.am.  E.g., we can complain about
something in configure.ac that conflicts with the current
Makefile.am (e.g. a variable definition).

Also we should have a way to print diagnostic such as

configure.ac:12: `FOO' defined in condition `TRUE' here ...
Makefile.am:8: ... cannot be redefined in condition `COND' (implied
Makefile.am:8: by condition `TRUE').

or more to the point of sorting lines:

Makefile.am:12: `FOO' defined in condition `TRUE' here ...
Makefile.am:8: ... cannot be redefined in condition `COND' (implied
Makefile.am:8: by condition `TRUE').


(We don't display this kind of message, but this would be nice
for http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/bug-automake/2002-August/000779.html)

Presently it is easy to print such a message by calling `msg'
twice consecutively.  If diagnostics were to be sorted we'd have
to devise a way to print something like this (maybe linking related 
diagnostics together?).

 Tom> Reading the above reminded me of this... it seems like
 Tom> buffering would help there.

-- 
Alexandre Duret-Lutz