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 2/4] c/c++, asm: Use nicer error for duplicate asm qualifiers

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:02:29AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/12/18 10:50 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:31:02AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>>+	    {
> >>>+	      error_at (loc, "duplicate asm qualifier %qE", token->value);
> >>
> >>We have been making an effort to quote keywords, identifiers,
> >>option names, and other such things in diagnostics.  In
> >>the message above and all others like it in this patch kit
> >>that mention "asm" the keyword should be quoted the same
> >>way as the name of the qualifier.
> >
> >This message is about "asm qualifiers".  It is not about the "asm"
> >statement.  You can write this without "asm" keyword, too, anyway (with
> >an "__asm__" or such), making the message even more awkward to quote in
> >that case.  The location of the error has nothing to do with the "asm",
> >either.
> >
> >You should only quote keywords that are in the source text.  Not random
> >words that *could* be a keyword :-)
> asm is not a random word, or even an English word (please look
> in a dictionary if you're in doubt).  It is a C/C++ keyword :-)

An "asm qualifier" is a GCC extension.


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