RFR: 8220632: Suggest recompiling with a larger value of -Xmaxerrs/-Xmaxwarns if diagnostics were suppressed

[Liam Miller-Cushon]

I updated the webrev with the suggested changes to the diagnostic text:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cushon/8220632/webrev.01/

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:26 AM Jonathan Gibbons <
jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com> wrote:

>
> On 3/15/19 11:21 AM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:11 AM Ron Shapiro <ronshapiro at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Regarding Jonathan's comments in the bug, would it be helpful/possible to
>> categorize the types of diagnostics not shown? For built-in diagnostics we
>> could try to group (maybe just the popular ones?) by their key?
>>
>> 42 symbols could not be found
>> 15 errors from com.example.proc.ExampleProcessor
>> etc
>>
>> ?
>>
>
> It's certainly possible. I think we want to strike a balance between
> providing enough information to help avoid users getting stuck when
> diagnostics are suppressed, but not so much information that it's
> distracting (since hopefully in the common case the suppressed diagnostics
> are not necessary to understand the problem).
>
> In that specific example, Jon's suggestion to sort the non-recoverable
> diagnostics first (which I intend to follow up on JDK-8220691) would avoid
> suppressing the com.example.proc.ExampleProcessor diagnostics entirely.
>
>
> If we were to provide this extra info, maybe it could/should be opt-in.
> But, I think it is a better use of resources to make javac more friendly
> "out of the box" and to print the more-likely-important messages first, so
> that users don't have to wade through too much info.
>
> -- Jon
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20190315/278e4e68/attachment.html>