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]

Ping: [RFC, PATCH] Display inlining context for uninitialized warnings


I'm pinging <>.

I think, there are two subtopics to it that can be discussed separately.
I would like to focus on the patch itself here.  I am going to also
start a subthread dedicated to dealing with representative returns.

I still have the same questions I had when I was sending the patch.
I am going to reiterate them, but in a more structured/focused fashion.

> When percent_K_format is called, TEXT might already hold precise
> location information in case its (indirect) caller is
> warning_at/error_at.  So it seems to me, this function lacks
> distinguishing the two cases: being called from plain warning/error
> functions vs. their *_at counterparts (the location shouldn't be
> updated in the latter case).

David, do you agree?  Should a discriminator of some sort be introduced?

> Sometimes inlining context is still lost (with the current patch), as
> can be seen e.g. with a version of the test with 's/unsigned yo/int yo/'
> substitution applied.  (The chain of block = BLOCK_SUPERCONTEXT (block)
> is broken - it ends with 0 rather than a FUNCTION_DECL.)  Is this known
> and expected (e.g. because pass_late_warn_uninitialized runs very late),
> or something to be investigated and fixed?

I don't know whom to address this question to.  I guess I'll just go
ahead and investigate if no expert shows up.

> The patch was bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> Shall it be applied?

Addressing the two points above would make the solution more complete.
However, I think, the patch is still beneficial as-is, and it is not
hacky.  Re-tested, no regressions.


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