[DiagnosticVerifier] More accurate wording when printing diagnostics from external sources #30557
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…from external sources
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
|
cc @martinboehme , @gribozavr |
|
@swift-ci smoke test |
|
Sorry, completely missed this when you originally sent it. The wording "diagnostic produced elsewhere" seems strangely vague, but I also can't think of a good alternative -- and this is definitely better than just assuming the diagnostic came from Clang. |
gribozavr
approved these changes
Apr 2, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
#30028 marked these diags as "produced by Clang", but they can also often be notes attached to diagnostics in the verified file which point out declarations elsewhere. Change the message intro to read, "diagnostic produced elsewhere:" to avoid confusion in those cases.