On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> 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.
The semantics of '%+D' was defined long before I got involved. The way it was supposed to work is that we pick the location of the decl being specified, instead of taking the current location. When we figured that was insufficient, we introduced %H to say: pick this location. For that reason, one can only have on +D in a diagnostic message (I don't think we -- Gaby
