https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68656
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2015-12-02
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is "documented" here: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DiagnosticsGuidelines
When the diagnostic does not refer to a particular source code location, it
should use an explicit UNKNOWN_LOCATION rather than no location at all (since
the latter uses input_location implicitly and who knows what that is pointing
at). It is always better to pass input_location explicitly rather than
implicitly.
Unfortunately, there are still many many places in GCC that use warning/error
instead of warning_at/error_at.
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Which version worked ok? I think these warnings should simply not output
> any location (well, as we now have per-function optimization settings such
> warning
> may apply only for certain functions...)
Is process_options called at all for per-function optimization settings? It
doesn't seem to. There is a finish_options that actually takes a location_t
argument and it is called for per-function optimization options.
