On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 12:38:46PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> On 09/09/2013 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >That said, grepping for %q+D reveals quite some uses and it looks like
>> >all of them expect the location being used to be tha
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> That said, grepping for %q+D reveals quite some uses and it looks like
>> all of them expect the location being used to be that of the decl passed
>> to the diagnostic call, not some random o
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
>> On 09/09/2013 12:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > 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
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> 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",
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:46 AM, 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 (de
On 09/09/2013 12:44 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I understand that. It seems to me a much bigger project and must be
done for the C front-end too (I don't know the name of the equivalent
of location_of, but the location is wrong for it too, there must be
the equivalent of t = DECL_CONTEXT (t) for i
On 09/09/2013 12:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 12:38:46PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/09/2013 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
That said, grepping for %q+D reveals quite some uses and it looks like
all of them expect the location being used to be that of the decl pass
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 12:38:46PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >That said, grepping for %q+D reveals quite some uses and it looks like
> >all of them expect the location being used to be that of the decl passed
> >to the diagnostic call, not some ra
On 09/09/2013 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
That said, grepping for %q+D reveals quite some uses and it looks like
all of them expect the location being used to be that of the decl passed
to the diagnostic call, not some random other location.
If the decl is *not* a PARM_DECL, I expect %q+D to
Hi,
On 09/09/2013 12:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Everything happens via call backs. Thus from the generic diagnostic machinery,
you go to cp_printer for C++, thus location_of for C++. In C is different, but
again there is, evidently, a mechanism which uses DECL_CONTEXT for PARM_DECLs
which lead
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 12:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > 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.
> > > >
> > > > - warn
On 09/09/2013 12:08 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Everything happens via call backs. Thus from the generic diagnostic
machinery, you go to cp_printer for C++, thus location_of for C++. In
C is different, but again there is, evidently, a mechanism which uses
DECL_CONTEXT for PARM_DECLs which leads to
On 09/09/2013 12:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
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
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), OP
Hi,
On 09/09/2013 11:45 AM, 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);
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 param
Hi,
On 09/09/2013 11:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
How is '+' in %q+D defined? I failed to find documentation of the
diagnostic formats (but only searched for like two minutes).
You see, this is an issue ;) No seriously, in C++ I understand it by
looking at error.c:3438: when '+' is there, cp_p
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > > this patchlet fixes the column # of the unused parameter warnings
> > > > > > emitted
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > do_warn_unused_parameter by explicitly passing DECL_SOURCE_LOCATI
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > this patchlet fixes the column # of the unused parameter warnings
> > > > > emitted
> > > > > by
> > > > > do_warn_unused_parameter by explicitly passing DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION
> > > > > (decl)
> > > > > instead of wrongly re
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > On 09/09/2013 09:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Sun, 8 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > this patchlet fixes the column # of the unused parameter
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 09/09/2013 09:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > this patchlet fixes the column # of the unused parameter warnings emitted
> > > by
> > > do_warn_unused_parameter by ex
Hi Richard,
On 09/09/2013 09:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, 8 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
this patchlet fixes the column # of the unused parameter warnings emitted by
do_warn_unused_parameter by explicitly passing DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl)
instead of wrongly relying on '+', whi
On Sun, 8 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patchlet fixes the column # of the unused parameter warnings emitted by
> do_warn_unused_parameter by explicitly passing DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl)
> instead of wrongly relying on '+', which in this case ends up meaning the
> location of th
23 matches
Mail list logo
