Re: AW: [cdt-dev] Revisited: Warnings in conflicting files are marked as

[Alex Chapiro <achapiro@xxxxxxx>]

I guess there is another problem coomon for both bugs. IFile object to 
test having conflicted name always has a full path, not just a name. 
However, error parser manager while judging if there is a conflict of 
names always use just a file name. Conflict could take place if compiler 
outputs names only, which is not the case.

Ploett, Norbert wrote:

> Alex,
>
> no, not the same: 108489 is about whether the error marker gets
> displayed in the correct source file. My  Bug 108920 is about the
> classification of the bug - it is always an error, even if the compiler
> said "Warning".
>
> Both bugs are related in that they have to do with situations where
> there are source files with identical names. I did not notice the
> problem described in 108489 my examples, but that may have been
> coincidental.
>
> Bye,
>
>
> Norbert
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im
> Auftrag von Alex Chapiro
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. September 2005 16:14
> An: CDT General developers list.
> Betreff: Re: [cdt-dev] Revisited: Warnings in conflicting files are
> markedas errors (Bug 108920)
>
> Is it the same as *Bug #108489?*
>
> Ploett, Norbert wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > as the release date for CDT 3.0.1 may be drawing nearer I would again
> > like to ask for comments on a problem I documented in bugzilla 108920: 
> >
> > When there are two header files with identical names in a project, and
> > one of them produces warnings, then the gcc error parser generates a
> > message in such a way that it mistakes them to be error messages
> > himself. The nasty side effect is that eclipse refuses to debug a
> > project which compiles with only warnings.
> >
> > Details such as a demo project to reproduce the problem, a proposal for
> > a fix and the necessary patches are all attached to the bug and I
> >    
> posted
>  
>
> > this three weeks ago here already, but it went totally unnoticed. Seems
> > that many were on holiday at the time. Now I would really appreciate to
> > hear at least a comment on what I have reported. Can it be included in
> > 3.0.1? It's all there nice and handy, ready to be applied :-)
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Norbert Ploett
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >    
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>