[C++ Patch / RFC] PR 33067

Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini@oracle.com
Mon Oct 10 19:09:00 GMT 2011


Hi,
>> On 10/10/2011 07:59 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> Yes, I suspect the max_digits10 patch would be definitely an improvement.
>> Good. It's at the beginning of this thread, passes testing. Please have a
>> closer look.
> I did, but you seemed to show a preference for '6' digits which
> prompted my comments.
>
> OK for 4.6
Did I understand correctly, only 4.6, not 4.7? Works for me but seems a 
little unusual not applying anything to mainline.
>> If you like it, we can have it for 4.7.0 and otherwise also mark this
>> specific PR as duplicate of 49152 (which, actually, for this *specific* case
>> leans toward not printing any constant at all, similarly to the status quo
>> of the C front end)
> I suspect printing the literal is better.  I believe the actual fix is to print the lexeme as it appears in the source code.
I would suggest adding something to the audit trail of 49152. I 
understand that otherwise for this specific type of error message people 
will lean toward not printing the constants. In general, I (we) hear 
you, of course, it's a lond standing issue, isn't it?

Paolo.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list