[Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error

[mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724

--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
What's not fixed is this:
r.c:3:5: note: expected ‘int (*)(double *)’ but argument is of type ‘int
(*)(int *)’
 int callf (int, int, int (*)(double *));
     ^
we should point to the actual parameter.  I think PR60129 is a dupe for this,
though.
We'll probably have to add some *location_t stuff into the function_decl or
somewhere for this...