This is the mail archive of the 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: [Patch to gcc/function] PR 58362

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> On 09/09/2013 09:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > this patchlet fixes the column # of the unused parameter warnings emitted
> > > by
> > > do_warn_unused_parameter by explicitly passing DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl)
> > > instead of wrongly relying on '+', which in this case ends up meaning the
> > > location of the function declaration. Tested x86_64-linux.
> > I would have expected %q+D to use the location of the corresponding
> > decl, not some random other location.  So, isn't the bug in the
> > C++ frontend diagnostic machinery?
> Well, first notice that the patch fixes the issue *both* for the C and C++
> front-ends, that's why I added the testcase to c-c++-common. This isn't a C++
> issue. Then notice that we do already have tens of cases where we use
> DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION + %qD, when we want to be precise about the location. The
> diagnostic machinery has this mechanism using + which uses location_of, which
> is often useful for expressions, but which very often we don't use for decls.
> In fact, some people, like Manuel, see the audit trail of the bug, find the
> mechanism quite confusing. Is there something specific you want me to check?

How is '+' in %q+D defined?  I failed to find documentation of the
diagnostic formats (but only searched for like two minutes).


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