This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][C++] Fix PR60761, diagnostics in clones
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 10:21:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][C++] Fix PR60761, diagnostics in clones
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1404081353460 dot 31108 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <534439DC dot 5090902 at redhat dot com>
On April 8, 2014 8:03:08 PM CEST, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>On 04/08/2014 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Jason, is <clone> good or shall I use sth else (do we annotate
>in-charge vs. not in-charge
>> constructors specially for example?).
>
>The names of the in-charge and not-in-charge constructor clones are
>complete_ctor_identifier and base_ctor_identifier (and dtor for
>destructors); you could check for those.
I was more asking for how we present those To the user in diagnostics. I wanted to use a consistent 'quoting' style. If using <clone> is fine then I'll just stick to that.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Richard.
>Jason