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: [C++ Patch] PR 44516

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
Cc: Iain Sandoe <idsandoe at googlemail dot com>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, Nicola Pero <nicola dot pero at meta-innovation dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 00:30:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
References: <4FB042F7.1060802@oracle.com> <4FB1388F.1020208@oracle.com> <4FB14313.8000001@redhat.com> <4FB1926F.1040100@oracle.com> <4FB2A630.2090003@redhat.com> <4FB2C307.6090509@oracle.com> <4FB2D47A.9020706@redhat.com> <4FB2DC57.8080100@oracle.com> <4FB2E89B.2090408@redhat.com> <4FB2ED4B.40204@oracle.com> <4FB326BB.10708@redhat.com> <4FB38767.5030202@oracle.com> <4FB3CA9D.1020800@redhat.com> <4FB447AD.2060308@oracle.com> <4FB47165.5090901@redhat.com> <4FB4AD4E.6020404@oracle.com> <4FB4AE47.1070105@oracle.com> <CAAiZkiD5UTYUQg6dmHyVG2o5CgmrHTTyvZqrBk3DcNfEtDAP2Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FB4BFB0.6030903@oracle.com> <4FB555C1.1030508@redhat.com> <4FB5574A.9050107@oracle.com> <6420891D-4C31-49E6-A73E-8C2C99CCC1A6@comcast.net> <E05E6F90-026D-45BE-80CF-3D88AEBB4B5D@googlemail.com> <4FBB8505.3090509@oracle.com> <4FBBB3FE.4060009@redhat.com> <4FBBB58D.2050908@oracle.co! m> <4FBBB707.5030601@oracle.! ! com> <4FBBC200.6050504@red! hat.com> <4FBC02AA.4080606@oracle.com>

On 05/22/2012 05:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:

Uhhm, I have an "out of the blue" idea, so please excuse me if for some
"obvious" reason doesn't make sense: don't we have a global variable
saying "where we are" in the compiler pipeline?

I'm not sure, but the question led me to thinking about only asserting if input_location != UNKNOWN_LOCATION. Would that work?

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini

References:
- [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Mike Stump
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Iain Sandoe
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44516
  - From: Paolo Carlini

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