Re: [RFA] finish warning_at -> warning transition

[Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
<lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now the patch. Bootstrapped with --enable-languages=all,obj-c++ on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu revision 146956.
>
> OK for trunk?

The patch introduces long lines > 80 characters.  Please wrap them
accordingly.

Also it would probably be easier to review if the patch would be split
into a patch adding missing location arguments and a patch renaming
warning_at to warning.  But - I can see this will require maybe pointless
hassle on your side.

For the changelog please repeat the gcc-interface/misc.c for each
separate ChangeLog file in the first entry.

Is it the case that whenever a location argument is missing you
simply add input_location?  In this case all changes in the middle-end
and backends are ok if lines are wrapped properly.  (I would nearly
call the patch obvious in that case - but obviously it's too large for
that to apply ;))

A GWP sign-off would probably be easiest (adding Mark who announced the
slush to CC).

Thanks,
Richard.

> Cheers,
>
> Manuel.
>
> 2009-04-29 ?Manuel López-Ibáñez ?<manu@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> ada/
> ? ? ? ?* gcc-interface/misc.c: Warning takes an explicit
> ? ? ? ?location. Replace warning_at by warning.
> ? ? ? ?* gcc-interface/utils.c: Likewise.
> gcc/
> ? ? ? ?* attribs.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* bt-load.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* builtins.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* c-common.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* c-decl.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* c-format.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* c-lex.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* c-opts.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* c-parser.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* c-pragma.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* c-typeck.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* calls.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* cfgexpand.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* cgraph.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* cgraphunit.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/alpha/alpha.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/arc/arc.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/arm/arm.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/avr/avr.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/bfin/bfin.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/cris/cris.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/darwin-c.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/darwin.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/darwin.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/h8300/h8300.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/i386/cygming.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/i386/djgpp.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/i386/i386.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/i386/winnt.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/ia64/ia64-c.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/ia64/ia64.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/m32c/m32c-pragma.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/m32c/m32c.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/m32r/m32r.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/m68hc11/m68hc11.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/m68k/m68k.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/mcore/mcore.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/mips/mips.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/mmix/mmix.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/pa/pa-hpux11.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/pa/pa.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/picochip/picochip.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/rs6000/aix43.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/rs6000/aix51.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/rs6000/aix52.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/rs6000/aix53.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/rs6000/aix61.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/rs6000/rs6000.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/s390/s390.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/score/score3.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/score/score7.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/sh/sh.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/sh/sh.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/sh/symbian.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/sol2-c.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/sol2.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/spu/spu.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/stormy16/stormy16.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/v850/v850-c.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/v850/v850.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* config/xtensa/xtensa.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* coverage.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* diagnostic.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* emit-rtl.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* expr.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* final.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* fixed-value.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* fold-const.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* function.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* gcse.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* haifa-sched.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* loop-iv.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* omp-low.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* opts.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* reginfo.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* reload1.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* simplify-rtx.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* stmt.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* stor-layout.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* targhooks.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* toplev.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* toplev.h: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree-cfg.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree-dump.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree-inline.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree-mudflap.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree-optimize.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree-ssa-loop-niter.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree-ssa-structalias.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree-ssa.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree-vrp.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* varasm.c: Likewise.
>
> cp/
> ? ? ? ?* call.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* class.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* cp-gimplify.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* cvt.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* decl.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* decl2.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* except.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* friend.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* init.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* lex.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* mangle.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* method.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* name-lookup.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* parser.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* repo.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* rtti.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* search.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* semantics.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* tree.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* typeck.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* typeck2.c: Likewise.
>
> java/
> ? ? ? ?* class.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* decl.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* expr.c: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* jcf-parse.c: Likewise.
> objc/
> ? ? ? ?* objc-act.c: Likewise.
>
>
>
> 2009/4/29 Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez@gmail.com>:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am currently bootstrapping a patch against revision 146956 to make
>> warning take an explicit location always and hence remove warning_at,
>> hence finishing this partial transition. Obviously the patch is huge
>> and everytime a warning is touched, it breaks. Furthermore, I can only
>> test x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>>
>> So, I am asking:
>>
>> Should trunk be frozen until the patch is reviewed + committed to
>> avoid any breakage? This may be restricted to patches touching
>> warnings, everything else can still go in.
>>
>> Can anyone test the patch in different targets?
>>
>> In any case, fixing any breakage should be trivial (and surely it will
>> be an obvious patch that doesn't require review).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Manuel.
>>
>