Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> You use this to get suggested corrections when things don't compile.

It repeatedly says that the aim is to fix errors. Assuming, however, that it is intended to give better error messages, here is the output of Clang on the input C program given as an example:

  $ cc gupta.c
  gupta.c:3:5: warning: incompatible redeclaration of library function 'pow'
      [-Wincompatible-library-redeclaration]
  int pow(int a, int b);
    ^
  gupta.c:3:5: note: 'pow' is a builtin with type 'double (double, double)'
  gupta.c:14:23: error: function definition is not allowed here
  int pow(int a, int b){
                      ^
  gupta.c:18:14: error: expected ';' at end of declaration
  return res;}
              ^
              ;
  gupta.c:18:14: error: expected '}'
  gupta.c:4:11: note: to match this '{'
  int main(){
            ^
  1 warning and 3 errors generated.
It identifies the problematic line of the program code better than gcc. The function declaration within main is not legal. I tried this with the gcc compiler and did not get the error above. Running "indent" on the code would have revealed the problems:

$ indent < gupta.c

/INDENT Error@18: Stuff missing from end of file */

A simple count of braces, { and }, would also have revealed the problem.




So you're saying this whole paper could have been avoided if they just used clang. And it seems you're right.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: