On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Volker Reichelt wrote:
[...]
Not sure if the warning is too useful, but in any case...
> + /* Emit warning. */
> + gcc_rich_location richloc (token->location);
> + richloc.add_fixit_remove ();
> + if (colon_token->type == CPP_COLON)
> + richloc.add_fixit_remove (colon_token->location);
> +
> + switch (message_id)
> + {
> + case 1:
> + warning_at_rich_loc (&richloc, OPT_Waccess_specifiers_,
> + "redundant %qE access-specifier",
> + token->u.value);
> + inform (next_token->location, "directly followed by another one here");
> + break;
> +
> + case 2:
> + warning_at_rich_loc (&richloc, OPT_Waccess_specifiers_,
> + "duplicate %qE access-specifier",
> + token->u.value);
> + inform (current_access_specifier_loc,
> + "same access-specifier was previously given here");
> + break;
...you should only call inform if warning_at_rich_loc returned true.
Marek
