On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 16:24 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 11/17/2015 04:13 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 22:34 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > >> > >> Should c_expr perhaps acquire a constructor so that this problem is > >> avoided in the future? The whole thing seems somewhat error-prone. > > > > I agree that it's error prone, and the ctor approach is what I've been > > trying for the C++ FE [1] but I suspect that touching that in the C FE > > would be a much more invasive patch (unless we simply give it a default > > ctor that makes the src_range be a pair of UNKNOWN_LOCATIONS?). > > The UNKNOWN_LOCATIONS pair would have been my approach, yes. > > > This case gains a pair of locals: start_loc and end_loc (so that we can > > track the spelling range whilst retaining the "loc" used for the caret), > > and I preferred to confine their scope to within the case, hence the > > extra braced block. Omitting the braced block leads to: > > ../../src/gcc/c/c-parser.c:7494:7: error: jump to case label [-fpermissive] > > case RID_OFFSETOF: > > ^ > > ../../src/gcc/c/c-parser.c:7472:17: error: crosses initialization of > > ‘location_t end_loc’ > > location_t end_loc = c_parser_peek_token (parser)->get_finish (); > > ^ > > etc. > > Hmm, odd, I tried placing just the location_t start_loc line into the > switch and that appeared to compile fine. But I guess this is not a huge > problem. > > > > Is the combination of the 3 patches OK for trunk? (assuming > > bootstrap®rest; it's only the braced-init tweak that hasn't been). > > Yes.
Thanks. I've committed the 3 patches to trunk as r230497, which should fix the worst of the regressions caused by r230331 seen on AIX. I'll continue to investigate as per the discussion above.
