Hi,
On 05/09/2012 02:59 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/09/2012 08:21 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Is unapplied because I was really nervous due to the wrong location
(thus caret) of the error call, at the end of the whole condition. Now,
I'm wondering, shall we consistently use error_at (location_of (expr),
... for the error messages produced by the *convert* functions?
Sure. Note that as an alternative to error_at (location_of (expr) you
can just use %q+E; the + means "use the location of this argument".
A great, very concise, didn't know that (but maybe we want to make
Manuel happier ;)
The
below quick fix makes me *much* more happy, the caret points to the
closed round brace of the b() call. Can I trust all the exprs to come
with an embedded location *at least* as accurate as input_location,
normally better?
I would think so, yes. If an expression doesn't have a location,
location_of/%q+E will just use input_location.
In the meanwhile I found a "counterexample" ;) Consider:
enum E { e1 };
E e = e1;
void bar(int a)
{
if (e = a)
;
}
right now the location for the "invalid conversion from ‘int’ to ‘E’"
error message seems pretty good, points to the a in "if (e = a)". If I do:
Index: call.c
===================================================================
--- call.c (revision 187290)
+++ call.c (working copy)
@@ -5704,7 +5704,7 @@ convert_like_real (conversion *convs, tree expr, t
break;
}
- permerror (input_location, "invalid conversion from %qT to %qT",
+ permerror (location_of (expr), "invalid conversion from %qT to %qT",
TREE_TYPE (expr), totype);
if (fn)
permerror (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (fn),
then an horrible thing happen: the error message points to the b in bar
in "void bar(int a)" !!! What the heck has that to do with the actual
conversion two lines below?!? Isn't even pointing to the a in "void
bar(int a)"!
So... I guess I could start experimenting with my idea, but we should be
ready to fix regressions... Or we can already take from the
"counterexample" a general lesson? Or maybe a subset of the conversion*
functions, those in cvt.c?, seems first blush safer to tweak?
Paolo.
