On 29 July 2016 at 18:27, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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.
Personally, I'm happy with having this work only on the FEs. I haven't had time to look at what Martin is doing, so he may prefer otherwise. In any case, making it work from LTO could be done as a follow-up, no? > I can also do the stored-location approach, but it would mean rewriting > all the patches again, I think, would be less efficient. Agreed, FWIW. > I would prefer the on-demand approach. > > Who is empowered to make a decision here? I thought you were the diagnostics maintainer ;-) Cheers, Manuel.
