This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: warning: multi-line comment (why?)
- To: Neil Booth <NeilB at earthling dot net>
- Subject: Re: warning: multi-line comment (why?)
- From: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at cygnus dot co dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:38:43 +0100 (BST)
- CC: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at pasanda dot cygnus dot co dot uk>, Jamie Lokier <egcs at tantalophile dot demon dot co dot uk>, Jan Dvorak <johnydog at go dot cz>, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
> Ah, now I see what you're getting at. The \\n case reports the
> beginning of the in-progress token; missing \n reports the col number.
> Not sure it's worth changing; it's not as if the location is in any
> doubt. Do you think it's worth the extra overhead to get a correctly
> reported column number for unexpected EOF?
I don't know. But we should be aware that we are deciding about this.
I think it's OK if you leave out the coloumn number when you realise that
you don't know it, but it is dubious to report an incorrect one.