This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch to gcc/function] PR 58362
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 07:53:44 -0500
- Subject: Re: [Patch to gcc/function] PR 58362
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <522CCF1B dot 8080007 at oracle dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1309090945470 dot 3869 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <522D8BBC dot 608 at oracle dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1309091132340 dot 3869 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1309091136460 dot 3869 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <522DA536 dot 8000307 at oracle dot com>
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Paolo Carlini <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> That said, grepping for %q+D reveals quite some uses and it looks like
>> all of them expect the location being used to be that of the decl passed
>> to the diagnostic call, not some random other location.
> If the decl is *not* a PARM_DECL, I expect %q+D to be often accurate. In
> fact, even when *is* a PARM_DECL what we have now is pretty decent, because
> normally the location of the corresponding FUNCTION_DECL isn't that far. The
> point is whether we want to be *more* accurate and point to the specific
> unused parameter, for C and C++, as clang and icc do.
I think the logic is simpler if we use the xxx_at form in these cases.