[Bug c++/45333] New: Include macros in instantiation backtraces

["aaw at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

Consider the following code sample:


#define ZERO(c) c.set(0)

struct S
{
 int a;
 int b;
};

template <class T>
class C
{
 T t;

public:
 void set(int x) { t = x; }
};

void foo(C<S> &c)
{
 ZERO(c);
}


When compiled with clang, the instantiation backtrace shows the point of
instantiation within the ZERO macro:

#> clang ./tst.cc
./tst.cc:15:23: error: no viable overloaded '='
 void set(int x) { t = x; }
                   ~ ^ ~
./tst.cc:20:3: note: in instantiation of member function 'C<struct S>::set'
     requested here
 ZERO(c);
 ^
./tst.cc:1:19: note: instantiated from:
#define ZERO(c) c.set(0)
                 ^
./tst.cc:3:8: note: candidate function (the implicit copy assignment operator)
     not viable: no known conversion from 'int' to 'struct S const' for 1st
     argument
struct S
      ^
3 diagnostics generated.


By contract, gcc ignores the macro completely:

#> ./install/bin/gcc -c ./tst.cc
./tst.cc: In member function ?void C<T>::set(int) [with T = S]?:
./tst.cc:20:3:   instantiated from here
./tst.cc:15:21: error: no match for ?operator=? in ?this->C<S>::t = x?
./tst.cc:3:8: note: candidate is: S& S::operator=(const S&)

GCC should include macros in instantiation backtraces like clang does.


-- 
           Summary: Include macros in instantiation backtraces
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: aaw at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45333