On Wed, 2023-09-06 at 15:53 +0200, Arthur Cohen wrote:
> From: David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com>
This is probably something for the gcc-rust maintainers to review
(rather than me self-reviewing with my "diagnostics maintainer" hat
on).
Doesn't have a ChangeLog entry, FWIW.
Doesn't have a signed-off-by, so here's one:
Signed-off-by: David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com>
[...snip...]
> diff --git a/gcc/rust/rust-gcc-diagnostics.cc b/gcc/rust/rust-gcc-
> diagnostics.cc
> index 72d2c068541..58c0a5654ea 100644
> --- a/gcc/rust/rust-gcc-diagnostics.cc
> +++ b/gcc/rust/rust-gcc-diagnostics.cc
[...snip...]
> +void
> +rust_be_error_at (const RichLocation &location, const ErrorCode
> code,
> + const std::string &errmsg)
> +{
> + /* TODO: 'error_at' would like a non-'const' 'rich_location *'.
The above comment should refer to "error_meta", rather than
"error_at"...
> */
> + rich_location &gcc_loc = const_cast<rich_location &> (location.get
> ());
> + diagnostic_metadata m;
> + rust_error_code_rule rule (code);
> + m.add_rule (rule);
> + error_meta (&gcc_loc, m, "%s", errmsg.c_str ());
... to match this call.
[...snip...]
Otherwise, LGTM, but as I said, this is more in the gcc-rust
maintainers' area.
Dave
