comp.unix.xenix
J.T. Conklin
jtc at van-bc.UUCP
Sat Nov 25 06:45:56 AEST 1989
In article <529 at s5.Morgan.COM> amull at Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) writes:
>When I have compiler errors in cc or rcc under SCO UNIX System
>V/386 r3.2 I only get the error number, not the text, (or the
>helpful indication of which identifier is undefined, etc.).
I think that the lack of comprehensive diagnostics is the most serious
drawback of the present SCO UNIX/XENIX C compilers.
Given the compiler technology availiable today, there is absolutely
no excuse for poor diagnostics.
For example, I would expect the following code:
#include <stdio.h>
main(argc, argv)
{
printf("hello, world!\n")
printf("%d, %d\n", foo bar);
}
to produce error messages similar to the following:
cc1: Warning: foo.c: line 5: Inserting Missing Semicolon
printf("hello, world!\n")
----------------------------^
cc1: Error: foo.c: line 6: Undefined Identifier
printf("%d, %d\n", foo bar);
----------------------^
cc1: Warning: foo.c: line 6: Inserting Missing Comma
printf("%d, %d\n", foo bar);
-------------------------^
cc1: Error: foo.c: line 6: Undefined Identifier
printf("%d, %d\n", foo bar);
---------------------------^
I realize that the Microsoft C compiler comes from a marketplace which
judges compilers solely on compilation speed, and the size and execution
speed of the binaries they produce, but I don't think this is an
unreasonable request.
--jtc
--
J.T. Conklin
...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!jtc, jtc at wimsey.bc.ca
More information about the Comp.unix.xenix
mailing list