On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 11:45:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > Well, in this case the patch should IMHO be a no-op. > > > > - warning (OPT_Wunused_parameter, "unused parameter %q+D", decl); > > + warning_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl), OPT_Wunused_parameter, > > + "unused parameter %qD", decl); > > > > no? Unless I misunderstand what %q+D should do. > > The question is how exactly is %q+D defined, if it is > warning_at (location_of (decl), OPT_Wunused_parameter, "unused parameter > %qD", decl); in this case, or > DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl) instead.
It can't be 'location_of' because that's a C++ FE speciality but warning_at and %q+D are diagnostic machinery level. Unless of course the meaning of %q+D depends on the frontend which would make its use from the middle-end ill-defined. Richard.
