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: [PATCH 1/2] RFC: C++: attempt to provide location_t in more places

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:26:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] RFC: C++: attempt to provide location_t in more places
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <56501A61 dot 6010806 at redhat dot com> <1448484660-7094-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <1448484660-7094-2-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com>

It's not clear to me whether I should be passing in UNKNOWN_LOCATION
or input_location to the various functions.

cp_build_unary_op used input_location in various places internally,
so I've passed that in wherever there isn't a better value.

Rather than try to get this right now I'm inclined to save it for thenext stage 1 and go back to protected_set_expr_location for GCC 6.

Bootstraps (on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), but regresses some tests, due to
changes in locations at which diagnostics are emitted:

  c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/cilk_for_errors.c
  c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/for1.c
  c-c++-common/gomp/pr59073.c
  g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template14.C
  g++.dg/gomp/for-1.C
  g++.dg/gomp/pr39495-2.C
  g++.dg/init/new38.C
  g++.dg/warn/Wconversion-real-integer2.C
  g++.dg/warn/pr35635.C


Are the changes good or bad?

Jason

References:
- Re: [PATCH/RFC] C++ FE: expression ranges (v2)
  - From: Jason Merrill
- [PATCH/RFC 0/2] C++ FE: expression ranges (v3)
  - From: David Malcolm
- [PATCH 1/2] RFC: C++: attempt to provide location_t in more places
  - From: David Malcolm

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