+void test_2 (void)
+{
+ takes_int_ptr(ivar); /* { dg-warning "" "" { target c } } */
+ /* { dg-error "" "" { target c++ } .-1 } */
+ /* { dg-message "possible fix: take the address with '&'" "" { target *-*-*
} .-2 } */
+
+ /* Expect an '&' fix-it hint. */
+ /* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ takes_int_ptr(ivar);
+ ^~~~
+ |
+ int
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+ /* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ takes_int_ptr(ivar);
+ ^~~~
+ &
I experimented with adding hints to sizeof_pointer_memaccess_warning
over the weekend and ran into a location difference between the two
front-ends. In an attempt to resolve it, rather than using
an "insertion hint" like I think you did above, I used a replacement
hint. And although it started out as a workaround I ended up liking
the result better. What I think the same approach would result in
here is something like:
takes_int_ptr(ivar);
note: possible fix: take the address with '&'
note: takes_int_ptr(ivar);
^~~~
|
int
note: takes_int_ptr(ivar);
^~~~
&ivar
Have you considered this style, i.e., printing valid expressions
in the hints when possible rather than just operators? It solves
the problem of the lone operators looking a little too terse and
cryptic.
I realize it's not always possible (not every fix-it hint is for
a bad expression) but I'm wondering if it would be worth using
when it is.
Martin
