On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:19 PM Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > Anyway, regstrapped on x86-64-linux, no regressions. Okay for trunk? > > > > Ick. Given you do that only for one stmt kind and it looks kind of ugly > > wouldn't it be better to splat out gimple_set_location (g, > > input_location) to all 108 places that call gimple_build_* in gimplify.c > > and get rid of that ugly location post-processing? > > I thought about this and rejected it for stage 3, but if you say that's > feasible I'll work on that; it is indeed nicer.
If you can try that would be nice, and yes, given it fixes a bug it's OK for stage3. > > I also wonder why we do not simply rely on the "surrounding" location > > handing of UNKNOWN_LOCATION and, say, simply only annotate the "main" > > gimplified stmt with the expr location? > > Yeah. Though that will be harder to verify to be correct (or at least not > regressing vis the current state). True. Nevertheless eventually good enough ;) Richard. > > Ciao, > Michael.
