aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:2187
else
- SemaRef.Diag(TypoLoc, DiagnosticID) << Typo;
+ SemaRef.Diag(TypoRange.getEnd(), DiagnosticID) << Typo;
return;
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> I'm not passing the `TypoRange` here now, which regresses the test case I
> posted. Apparently the handling of `-fmacro-backtrace-limit` depends on the
> range passed here? That seems weird.
Is it failing within `checkRangesForMacroArgExpansion()` in
DiagnosticRenderer.cpp? It looks like this change effectively undoes the work
from ecd36ee80b7a6ac73c84da19f8a75c4c025a7625
================
Comment at: clang/test/Misc/reduced-diags-macros-backtrace.cpp:30-38
+// ALL-NEXT: {{.*}}:6:20: note: expanded from macro 'ADD'
+// ALL-NEXT: #define ADD(x,y) G(x) + y
+// ALL-NEXT: ^
+// ALL-NEXT: {{.*}}:5:16: note: expanded from macro 'G'
+// ALL-NEXT: #define G(x) F(x) + 2
+// ALL-NEXT: ^
+// ALL-NEXT: {{.*}}:4:14: note: expanded from macro 'F'
----------------
These notes make it harder to read the diagnostic instead of easier, I think
they should remain suppressed.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Misc/reduced-diags-macros-backtrace.cpp:42-56
+// ALL-NEXT: {{.*}}:10:26: note: expanded from macro 'LEVEL1'
+// ALL-NEXT: #define LEVEL1(x) LEVEL2(x)
+// ALL-NEXT: ^
+// ALL-NEXT: {{.*}}:9:26: note: expanded from macro 'LEVEL2'
+// ALL-NEXT: #define LEVEL2(x) LEVEL3(x)
+// ALL-NEXT: ^
+// ALL-NEXT: {{.*}}:8:26: note: expanded from macro 'LEVEL3'
----------------
Same here.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D150191/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D150191
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
