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: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures


So, apart from the type of the flag, are there any other comments on
the patch? Is the approach acceptable?

On 21 April 2012 17:51, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>> On 21 April 2012 16:22, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>>> > Do no use 'char' as the type of a flag. ?Prefer 'unsigned int'.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Thanks, good catch! Should I worry about memory here and use something shorter?
>>
>> If it is a bool flag, you certainly should use bool type, which is shorter.
>
> It is a bit flag -- see the patch in his original message and 'enum
> diagnostic_info_flags'.


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