Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

On 05/17/2012 10:33 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Paolo Carlini<paolo.carlini@oracle.com>  wrote:
> > On 05/17/2012 09:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > > Can we concisely characterize those messages and exclude them from the
> > > gcc_assert?
> > Well, if don't quickly figure out something better, I guess we can always
> > add the assert at the beginning of warning_at, error_at, etc.
> I am still puzzled by why we need to assert, as opposed to just ignore, unless
> we have a plan to make a wholesale move -- but even there I am bit nervous.
Eh, don't ask me ;) Anyway, in terms of testing that we aren't screwing 
up anything in the C++ front-end, the testsuite just passed with the 
below p3 attached. That's good.

If we wanted to apply it we would have to tweak a bit objc, because it 
wants to use warning_at (0, 0, ..). Also, as you can see, I didn't test 
asserts in permerror, inform, because explicitly passing 0 has uses in 
the C++ front-end, and also pedwarn, because the comment before it 
explains that pedwarn (0, ...) can be useful in some cases.

Thus, I guess, basing on this further positive test and the previous 
feedback from Jason, I 'm going ahead with the last complete patch I 
posted for 44516 + the tweak named p2. I'm going to boot and test again 
and commit the whole thing.

If we want to add something in terms of asserts, that seems anyway quite 
an independent issue, just let me know.

Thanks!
Paolo.

/////////////////////////

Attachment: p3
Description: Text document