Re: eglot-test-diagnostic-tags-unnecessary-code fails with certain clangd versions

[João Távora]

  On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:36 AM Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 18:47:46 +0000, João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> 
> >>>>> said:
>
>     João> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 6:27 PM chad <yandros@gmail.com> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> FWIW, Debian stable has clangd-13 as an option, but not v14 or later:
>     >>
>     >>> clangd-13/stable 1:13.0.1-6~deb11u1 amd64
>     >>> Language server that provides IDE-like features to editors
>
>     João> Thanks, that's close.
>
>     João> I really wonder if installing a newer package of that pulls in
>     João> that many more dependencies, but I have no way to check.
>
> # apt install clangd-13
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree... Done
> Reading state information... Done
> The following additional packages will be installed:
>   libclang-common-13-dev libclang-cpp13 libllvm13
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   clangd-13 libclang-common-13-dev libclang-cpp13 libllvm13
> 0 upgraded, 4 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
> Need to get 39.0 MB of archives.
> After this operation, 249 MB of additional disk space will be
> used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
>
> So itʼs not that many packages, but the point is moot because clangd
> 13 also fails.

What I meant rather, was trying to install version 14 from one of
those sources I listed earlier.  Perhaps all that we'll see is that
instead of:

  clangd-13 libclang-common-13-dev libclang-cpp13 libllvm13

we'll see

  clangd-14 libclang-common-14-dev libclang-cpp14 libllvm14

If the former is acceptable so should be the latter, especially
if the installation of the support libraries is motivated by
clangd alone.

>     João> Anyway, I now pushed a version-checking patch to master.
>
> Thanks, that test is skipped for me now (aside: is there any way to
> get ert to not spew the diagnostic output from commands such as clangd
> to the terminal?)

As far as I understand the output you mean, when running `make check`
all this output goes to a separate file.  The output is very useful for
debugging test failures.  But maybe I'm not following: what command
are you running exactly?

João