This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFA] Silence some warnings [was Re: "introduce no new bootstrap..."]
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Silence some warnings [was Re: "introduce no new bootstrap..."]
- From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:56:34 +0000
- Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200101141340.IAA04628@caip.rutgers.edu> <20010114124846.O1380@wolery.stanford.edu> <20010115201118.E31194@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <20010115132632.K18622@wolery.stanford.edu>
Zack Weinberg wrote:-
> We can live with some level of false positives. In the long term I
> want to see more information carried downstream with each token:
> at least the file it came from and the position within.
:-(
This is serious overhead, and further bloating of the token structure.
We don't deal with token pointers in cpplib (and we know where that
took us :-)), but with token objects --- and we do quite a lot of
(mostly unavoidable) token copying.
> This isn't just for warning suppression. One of the secondary
> goals of cpplib was so we could issue diagnostics and emit debug
> info inside complex macros, that referred to the real location of
> the source code.
Is this really worth it? We can print a macro stack with minimal
effort with existing code, and along with -E and -dD that should be
verbose enough for even the meanest intelligence to figure out :-)
Does DWARF2 or whatever have the ability to take all this info? I
hate to think of the size that debug info would become.
> I don't know what Mark's reaction will be, but my attitude is that
> overzealous warnings are a bug, so the patch qualifies as a bug fix.
> It's not hugely invasive and doesn't affect code generation, either.
I agree, but I'd like him to give it the thumbs up anyway.
Thanks,
Neil.