https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:23ec71d91e3044108a557dace573d3e60ff1c07e
commit r8-10649-g23ec71d91e3044108a557dace573d3e60ff1c07e
Author: Thomas Schwing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25b61f935a8eca56c68c8587fc8915797250bb30
commit r9-9073-g25b61f935a8eca56c68c8587fc8915797250bb30
Author: Thomas Schwinge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8e0357d129187b24085ce52172c87dbf6c2ecae
commit r10-9086-ge8e0357d129187b24085ce52172c87dbf6c2ecae
Author: Thomas Schwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0c7270cc4efd896fe99f8ad5409dbef089a407f
commit r11-5430-gc0c7270cc4efd896fe99f8ad5409dbef089a407f
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16)
> Should be greatly improved for C++ for gcc 9 by r267272.
...but not fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #16 from David Malcolm ---
Should be greatly improved for C++ for gcc 9 by r267272.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #15 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:08:21 2018
New Revision: 267272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: more location wrapper nodes (PR c++/43064, PR c++/43486)
This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 11 19:38:52 2018
New Revision: 256552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256552&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add some reproducers for issues found developing the location-wrappers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #11)
> Author: dmalcolm
> Date: Wed Jan 10 19:40:55 2018
> New Revision: 256448
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256448&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> Preserving
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Jan 10 19:40:55 2018
New Revision: 256448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256448&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Preserving locations for variable-uses and constants (PR c++/43486)
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #8)
> Can this *please* get fixed? This really hurts the ability to use
> -Wzero-as-null-ptr in particular. See
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-45291 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||darlingm at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #8 from Matthew Woehlke ---
Can this *please* get fixed? This really hurts the ability to use
-Wzero-as-null-ptr in particular. See
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-45291 for an example of the pain this
causes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-01
23:06:54 UTC ---
*** Bug 55173 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-14
18:28:32 UTC ---
I think there is a consensus that g++ wants this somehow. Recent work:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg01222.html
--- Comment #5 from tglek at mozilla dot com 2010-03-23 02:07 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I suppose we could wrap rvalue uses in NOP_EXPR and lvalue uses in
> VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR.
>
> Taras: You aren't actually trying to do this sort of analysis after lowering
> to
> GIMPLE, are you?
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-23 01:51 ---
I suppose we could wrap rvalue uses in NOP_EXPR and lvalue uses in
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR.
Taras: You aren't actually trying to do this sort of analysis after lowering to
GIMPLE, are you?
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-22 23:38 ---
I think we want this also for better diagnostics and in the long term for caret
diagnostics. At a minimum, we should handle the case
foo(
x, /* warning/error about x but location is that of either foo or the ';' */
y)
--- Comment #2 from tglek at mozilla dot com 2010-03-22 22:42 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Which location do you want? For function calls, it will be part of the call
> expression (or rather the call statement). For variables, it is harder to
> keep
> track of that usage. But most
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-22 22:33 ---
Which location do you want? For function calls, it will be part of the call
expression (or rather the call statement). For variables, it is harder to keep
track of that usage. But most statements have a line/colu
22 matches
Mail list logo
