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: [Patch to gcc/function] PR 58362


On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 12:38:46PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> On 09/09/2013 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >That said, grepping for %q+D reveals quite some uses and it looks like
>> >all of them expect the location being used to be that of the decl passed
>> >to the diagnostic call, not some random other location.
>> If the decl is *not* a PARM_DECL, I expect %q+D to be often
>> accurate. In fact, even when *is* a PARM_DECL what we have now is
>> pretty decent, because normally the location of the corresponding
>> FUNCTION_DECL isn't that far. The point is whether we want to be
>> *more* accurate and point to the specific unused parameter, for C
>> and C++, as clang and icc do.
>
> I guess the primary question is why location_of special cases the PARM_DECL
> and in which case it is useful to do so, and whether the number of cases (if
> any) when it is useful to do so is bigger than the number of place when it
> is undesirable.

Most likely historical reason, the exact sequence of which is lost to history.

-- Gaby


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