http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56989
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-04-17
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-17
21:08:52 UTC ---
Index: c-typeck.c
===================================================================
--- c-typeck.c (revision 198021)
+++ c-typeck.c (working copy)
@@ -1981,11 +1981,12 @@ default_conversion (tree exp)
if (TREE_NO_WARNING (orig_exp))
TREE_NO_WARNING (exp) = 1;
if (code == VOID_TYPE)
{
- error ("void value not ignored as it ought to be");
+ error_at (EXPR_LOC_OR_HERE (exp),
+ "void value not ignored as it ought to be");
return error_mark_node;
}
exp = require_complete_type (exp);
if (exp == error_mark_node)
/home/manuel/void.c:6:12: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
if (voidf() < 0
^
The location could be even better, but that is what the c-parser records.
I like Clang's diagnostic much more:
/home/manuel/void.c:6:15: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('void'
and 'int')
if (voidf() < 0
~~~~~~~ ^ ~
It is similar to what g++ produces:
/home/manuel/void.c:6:17: error: invalid operands of types ‘void’ and ‘int’ to
binary ‘operator<’
if (voidf() < 0
^
but with better locations.
