Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

[Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>]

A new  version using unsigned int for the flag type. It also adds
another use in the C FE.

I am not asking for approval, only whether this
approach/implementation is the way to go.

Cheers,

Manuel.

On 23 April 2012 20:09, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, apart from the type of the flag, are there any other comments on
> the patch? Is the approach acceptable?
>
> On 21 April 2012 17:51, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>>> On 21 April 2012 16:22, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>>>> > Do no use 'char' as the type of a flag. ?Prefer 'unsigned int'.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, good catch! Should I worry about memory here and use something shorter?
>>>
>>> If it is a bool flag, you certainly should use bool type, which is shorter.
>>
>> It is a bit flag -- see the patch in his original message and 'enum
>> diagnostic_info_flags'.

Attachment: caret-overload.diff
Description: Binary data