Dear all, Dodji: The gcc/*.[ch] part is your realm. David: I added you as CC because you looked into fancier diagnostics before
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > The Fortran FE allows diagnostics with two different locations. [...] > This is the last remaining issue Thanks for working on this - and sorry for the slow review. > In addition, I added a new function gfc_warning_at to pass an explicit > location. I think this is better than having another %-code in > gfc_format_decoder. As you can see in that function, we are now doing > a lot of work just to print (1) and (2), when the location_t could > simply be passed explicitly to the diagnostic functions and replace > all %L and %C with explicit (1) and (2) in the calls. This will remove > completely gfc_format_decoder. But I'll leave that to Fortran devs if > they are interested in going that route. Yes, that would be a possibility. I am not completely sure how much it would help at the call side/localization but for error.c it would surely be a nice cleanup. Let's defer this. > I had to decide what to print for -fno-diagnostics-show-caret and > multiple locations. It has to be something that can be distinguished > from a duplicate diagnostic, such that the testsuite can parse it as > such. I chose to print: I think that's okay. It's still readable and the "at (1)" wording is hard-coded in the message - thus, one has not that much leeway. > Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. > OK? The Fortran part looks good to me. Thanks! Tobias
