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 to gcc/function] PR 58362


On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> That said, grepping for %q+D reveals quite some uses and it looks like
>> all of them expect the location being used to be that of the decl passed
>> to the diagnostic call, not some random other location.
>
> If the decl is *not* a PARM_DECL, I expect %q+D to be often accurate. In
> fact, even when *is* a PARM_DECL what we have now is pretty decent, because
> normally the location of the corresponding FUNCTION_DECL isn't that far. The
> point is whether we want to be *more* accurate and point to the specific
> unused parameter, for C and C++, as clang and icc do.

I think the logic is simpler if we use the xxx_at form in these cases.

-- Gaby


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