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] |
Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:
That assumes that we *want* line-number 0 rather than 1. Switching to line-number 1 is easy in the --enable-mapped-location case (just fix the test-suite), though it's a little trickier while we're transitioning.
The intent is to have just <built-in>: as the human-readable location tag for all built-in declarations, line numbers not being meaningful for them. And line number 0 is supposed to do that.
I'm not disagreeing - just pointing out that isn't a priori obvious which of <built-in>:0 or <built-in>:1 is more "natural" for that use. I too would prefer to stick with the static quo of <built-in>:0.
So is the patch as submitted ok? -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |