This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch] remove in_system_header variable and fields

From: "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
To: "Rafael Espindola" <espindola at google dot com>
Cc: "Ralf Wildenhues" <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Diego Novillo" <dnovillo at google dot com>, "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant at google dot com>, "Tom Tromey" <tromey at redhat dot com>, "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:59:36 +0200
Subject: Re: [patch] remove in_system_header variable and fields
References: <38a0d8450807170501m5b7bb2deo6332f537302a2943@mail.gmail.com> <20080717180800.GB19232@ins.uni-bonn.de> <38a0d8450807180139y61cd362ft562014df58ea509@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/18 Rafael Espindola <espindola@google.com>:
> The attached patch implements you suggestion, except that I use the
> same comment for warning_at and warning0_at. The original code does
> the same for warning and warning0.
>
> OK for trunk?

I cannot approve it but it looks fine to me and it is a step forward
in the stated goal of passing an explicit location to diagnostic
functions: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01213.html

I guess you need approval from Gabriel for the diagnostics bits.

Cheers,

Manuel.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] remove in_system_header variable and fields
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

References:
- [patch] remove in_system_header variable and fields
  - From: Rafael Espindola
- Re: [patch] remove in_system_header variable and fields
  - From: Ralf Wildenhues
- Re: [patch] remove in_system_header variable and fields
  - From: Rafael Espindola

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]