This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures
- From: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 15:07:07 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures
- References: <CAESRpQA-bCbqMFSLD9VQ7kDPZCMmWs6zHG=4_bFqyW8-aFDp5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAAiZkiCA22cDGu3XueHc7h=cnR6i6BONbojXkVU-1cvVhi1CkA@mail.gmail.com> <CAESRpQAi8rHWYc5CrjpYtj_N35OJa2KQdrLHG5TiEFFzNmSC7Q@mail.gmail.com> <20120421144222.GG16117@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <CAAiZkiBYSfXBHE8fatoGX1UY9W2ZhsPv3cchVoiVEsvWh5Pxag@mail.gmail.com> <CAESRpQB+oaBww65vSVTxHSD-PNUArP7uZ_WhfqjkveoaNYc59Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAESRpQBjn2QXYVYhqvvXA1oiaYALBa5ngS0Y79-_Gns3BZsTLA@mail.gmail.com> <4FAA6B67.7040905@redhat.com>
On 9 May 2012 15:04, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/29/2012 06:28 AM, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÅez wrote:
>>
>> A new Âversion using unsigned int for the flag type. It also adds
>> another use in the C FE.
>>
>> I am not asking for approval, only whether this
>> approach/implementation is the way to go.
>
>
> That looks good. ÂI would still also adjust the caret printer to avoid
> printing the same caret twice in a row even when we haven't updated the
> caller.
I could implement that by storing the last location in the
diagnostic_context or using a static location_t in
diagnostic_show_locus. What is your preference?
Cheers,
Manuel.