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] PR 44516

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:53:35 +0200
Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
References: <4FB042F7.1060802@oracle.com> <4FB064DE.1080907@redhat.com> <4FB07AF9.8050500@oracle.com> <4FB082F1.3020100@redhat.com> <4FB1072B.9030909@oracle.com> <4FB131DA.7050809@redhat.com>

On 05/14/2012 06:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:

On 05/14/2012 09:22 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:

In terms of implementation details: the new _loc variant (I'm also
finding useful a build_min_loc and a build_min_non_dep_loc, by the way)
seems identical to the non-_loc variant besides calling
SET_EXPR_LOCATION, thus I'm thinking: would it make sense to have the
current non-_loc variants implemented in terms of the new ones and

That's problematic with variadic functions.

Yeah. I'm trying to replace *all* the current ones with the _loc variant. The patch as you can imagine is becoming *huge*. Some details will probably need another pass.

Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill

References:
- [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill

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