Re: [cdt-core-dev] Default Error Parsers was(Re: [cdt-patch] Fix for the

["Alain Magloire" <alain@xxxxxxx>]

> 
> > It turns out that all the register parsers needed to have a glimpse
> > at the output.  For example the DiscoveryScanner(extracts -I and -D)
> > or some other parser extracting information, the current
> > build directory or dependecy checking, etc ....
> 
> The rejection, and the reasons behind it, comes as a total surprise to
> us at Intel.  Everything that I had seen indicated that an error parser
> should return true if it handled the error.  The built-in VC++ error
> parser will return true, and an error parser that we have written for
> our Intel C++ integration returns true.  Are these error parsers in
> error for returning true?  And, if so, how were we supposed to know
> that?  Was there a CDT 2.0 design note that indicated that new
> functionality was going to use the error parser mechanism for what seems
> to be an unrelated purpose?=20
> 

The Error parsers that come with the CDT by default, have always return false.
Whether this behaviour is good/bad is another matter 8-)
changing it at this time is not a good idea, some folks may rely on
that buggy behaviour.

We hope to address this issue after 2.0, with proper API and clear behaviour.

If you want to create a custom error parser thats take advantage of this behaviour
for 2.0 ..go..

VC++ error is an odd one, it's not really been exercise by a lot of people, most
folks use the GNU toolchain.