Gabriel Dos Reis <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Dodji Seketeli <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr30457.c, the first warning was not being
>> emitted because the relevant location was inside the var_start macro
>> defined in a system header. It can even point to a token for a
>> builtin macro there. This patch unwinds to the first token in real
>> source code in that case.
>
> While you are at it, could you also use a non-zero value for the second
> argument argument to warning_at?
I couldn't find any obvious value for it. I am thinking maybe it would
make sense to introduction a new -Wva_start to warn about possible
dangerous uses of the va_start macro and use that as the second argument
for the relevant warnings emitted by fold_builtin_next_arg. What do you
think?
In any case, this topic seems logically unrelated to the purpose of
enable -ftrack-macro-expansion by default, so IMHO it would be better to
do this in a separate self contain patch. Among other things, this
would ease possible future back-ports. Would you agree?
Thanks.
--
Dodji
