[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gcc compile-time performance
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: gcc compile-time performance |
Date: |
Mon, 20 May 2002 23:37:54 +0200 |
At 13:47 -0700 2002/05/20, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
>GNAT's real advantage, in fact, is not so much in good error RECOVERY,
>as in good error DIAGNOSIS: its messages are MUCH better than the
>usual GCC standard. Panic-mode error recovery is never going to give
>you that.
This is a point also that I forgot to point out:
Even though I find it practical in C++ to compile to just the first error,
and then fix it, it is still very important that the error message is as
good as possible. Currently, with the C++ template system, errors can often
be quite incomprehensible and hard to understand. (For example, my non-GNU
compiler may report an error at the library template expansion, which is
not what I want, as the error was generated by my own code. Etc.)
Hans Aberg
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Hans Aberg, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20