> Please ignore the original patch, which is wrong. New patch updated, > passed regression test.
+ for (i = next_discriminator_location - min_discriminator_location - 1; + i >= 0 && LOCATION_LINE (discriminator_location_locations[i]) == + LOCATION_LINE (locus) && + discriminator_location_discriminators[i] == discriminator; i--) + if (discriminator_location_locations[i] == locus) + return block ? COMBINE_LOCATION_DATA ( + line_table, min_discriminator_location + i, block) + : min_discriminator_location + i; As per GCC coding conventions, the long expressions need to be parenthesized and indented under the parens, with operators at the beginning of the line, like this: + for (i = next_discriminator_location - min_discriminator_location - 1; + (i >= 0 + && (LOCATION_LINE (discriminator_location_locations[i]) + == LOCATION_LINE (locus)) + && discriminator_location_discriminators[i] == discriminator); + i--) + if (discriminator_location_locations[i] == locus) + return (block + ? COMBINE_LOCATION_DATA (line_table, + min_discriminator_location + i, + block) + : min_discriminator_location + i); Same here: + ret = block ? COMBINE_LOCATION_DATA ( + line_table, next_discriminator_location, block) + : next_discriminator_location; Should be something like this: + ret = (block + ? COMBINE_LOCATION_DATA (line_table, next_discriminator_location, + block) + : next_discriminator_location); (Although this last statement would probably read better as a regular if statement.) And here: + if (same_line_p (locus, stmt_locus)) + gimple_set_location ( + stmt, location_with_discriminator (stmt_locus, discriminator)); Should be something like this: + if (same_line_p (locus, stmt_locus)) + gimple_set_location (stmt, + location_with_discriminator (stmt_locus, + discriminator)); Looks good with those changes. Thanks! -cary
