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


On 05/15/2012 04:56 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
@@ -2753,7 +2754,8 @@ build_x_indirect_ref (location_t loc, tree expr, r
      rval = cp_build_indirect_ref (expr, errorstring, complain);

    if (processing_template_decl&&  rval != error_mark_node)
-    return build_min_non_dep (INDIRECT_REF, rval, orig_expr);
+    return build_min_non_dep_loc (EXPR_LOCATION (rval), INDIRECT_REF,

Shouldn't this use loc? If rval comes from cp_build_indirect_ref, it might not have the right location.


@@ -3621,15 +3623,16 @@ build_x_binary_op (location_t loc, enum tree_code
     warn_about_parentheses (code, arg1_code, orig_arg1, arg2_code, orig_arg2);

   if (processing_template_decl && expr != error_mark_node)
-    return build_min_non_dep (code, expr, orig_arg1, orig_arg2);
-
+    return build_min_non_dep_loc (EXPR_LOCATION (expr), code, expr,

Likewise. Similarly in build_x_array_ref, build_x_unary_op, build_x_conditional_expr, build_x_compound_expr.


I still see a lot of EXPR_LOC_OR_HERE in the patch, is that deliberate?

Jason


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