This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH:
Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM> writes:
| On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:14:23PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
| > On 23 Feb 2005 16:49:51 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| > > Neil Booth <email@example.com> writes:
| > >
| > > | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:-
| > > |
| > > | > That statement is factually false as can be verified with EDG-3.5:
| > > |
| > > | Oh come on Gaby, that's not printing an expression, it prints
| > >
| > > Please, the statement was that EDG does not print expression outside
| > > declarations. But the fact is it does not just print declarations. It
| > > prints also statements and expressions part of those statements.
| > I have no idea whether or not that's true, but as Neil says your example
| > does not support that claim. Textually reproducing an input line in a
| > diagnostic is very different from reconstructing it in the pretty-printer.
| I think that the best solution for the long term is the caret approach,
| printing out the original source line that the user typed. Trying to
| re-generate the expression from the tree is likely to generate something
| completely unlike the text of the original program. I do acknowledge that
| re-generating the expression could be helpful in the case where a macro
| expands into something the user did not expect, but that's not going to be
| the common case in C++.
many C++ programs are full of macros (more than would be desired).
And more and moe popular C++ libraries seem to make far more
extensive use of macros than in average programs in the past.
| Also, we maintain a standard of civility on this list. I've been known
| to violate it occasionally, but when I do I promptly apologize. Let's
| try to express our disagreements without treating each other with