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: [C++ PATCH] Fix 21280


Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> wrote:

>>> !     warning (0, "%Hsynthesized method %qD first required here ",
>>>       &input_location, fndecl);
>>
>>
>> Could you put something other than 0 there?  I'm working on
>> converting
>> all those zeros to OPT_* constants...
>
> Um, what do you suggest?  We're issuing this warning because we've
> just emitted an error or warning that occurred during synthesizing
> something.  For the error case, I think we should unconditionally
> provide this additional location information.  For the warning case
> (which I'm not sure can actually occur), the user obviously requested
> the initial warning, why should we not provide additional location
> information?

I believe that warning() is wrong, and inform() is a better fit for this kind
of messages. Which would also resolve this debate.

Giovanni Bajo


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