Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!usc!samsung!uunet!van-bc!jtc
From: jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: comp.unix.xenix
Keywords: cc error messages in SCO UNIX System V/386 r3.2
Message-ID: <69@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 24 Nov 89 19:45:56 GMT
References: <529@s5.Morgan.COM>
Reply-To: jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin)
Organization: Wimsey Associates
Lines: 47

In article <529@s5.Morgan.COM> amull@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@wimsey.bc.ca