On Fri, 2016-07-29 at 17:53 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 29 July 2016 at 16:25, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > FWIW, it appears that clang uses the on-demand approach; the > > relevant > > code appears to be StringLiteral::getLocationOfByte: > > http://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/Expr_8cpp_source.html#l01008 > > As far as I know, llvm doesn't do language diagnostics from the > middle-end/LTO. Thus, they do not have those problems.
If you really want to have middle-end diagnostics from LTO, I can make the on-demand approach work. I can also do the stored-location approach, but it would mean rewriting all the patches again, I think, would be less efficient. I would prefer the on-demand approach. Who is empowered to make a decision here?
