On 11/29/2016 10:13 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/29/2016 07:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Would you prefer that I went with approach (B), or is approach (A)
acceptable?
Well, I was hoping there'd be an approach (C) where the read-rtl code
uses whatever diagnostics framework that is available.
On 11/29/2016 07:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Would you prefer that I went with approach (B), or is approach (A)
acceptable?
Well, I was hoping there'd be an approach (C) where the read-rtl code
uses whatever diagnostics framework that is available. Maybe it'll turn
out that's too hard. Someh
On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 18:23 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 06:20 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > if that distinction makes sense. Clearly we already have a
> > diagnostics
> > subsystem on the host; what this patch is adding is the separate,
> > rtl-s
> > pecific diagnostic subsyste
On 11/29/2016 06:20 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
if that distinction makes sense. Clearly we already have a diagnostics
subsystem on the host; what this patch is adding is the separate, rtl-s
pecific diagnostic subsystem to cc1 on the host.
So that still seems odd to me. Why not use the normal di
On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 14:47 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Been looking at this off and on, and I'm still not sure I entirely
> get
> it - sorry.
>
> On 11/11/2016 10:15 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > Implementing an RTL frontend by using the RTL reader from read
> > > > -rtl.c
> > > > means tha
Been looking at this off and on, and I'm still not sure I entirely get
it - sorry.
On 11/11/2016 10:15 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Implementing an RTL frontend by using the RTL reader from read
-rtl.c
means that we now need a diagnostics subsystem on the *host* for
handling errors in RTL files, ra
David Malcolm writes:
> +inline file_location::file_location (const char *filename_in, int lineno_in,
> int colno_in)
> +: filename (filename_in), lineno (lineno_in), colno (colno_in) {}
> +
Long line (a pre-existing problem, since you're just moving the code).
I'm happy with this FWIW, but it'
Link to previous discussion:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg00648.html
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 19:53 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> David Malcolm writes:
> > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 18:00 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > On 10/05/2016 06:15 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > >
