Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

2012-05-09 Thread Jason Merrill
On 05/09/2012 09:07 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: I could implement that by storing the last location in the diagnostic_context or using a static location_t in diagnostic_show_locus. What is your preference? diagnostic_context, I guess. Jason

Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

2012-05-09 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 9 May 2012 15:04, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/29/2012 06:28 AM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote: >> >> A new  version using unsigned int for the flag type. It also adds >> another use in the C FE. >> >> I am not asking for approval, only whether this >> approach/implementation is the way to go. > >

Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

2012-05-09 Thread Jason Merrill
On 04/29/2012 06:28 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: A new version using unsigned int for the flag type. It also adds another use in the C FE. I am not asking for approval, only whether this approach/implementation is the way to go. That looks good. I would still also adjust the caret printer

Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

2012-05-09 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
Someone opened a bug about this: http://gcc.gnu.org/PR53289 Pinging: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg01836.html On 29 April 2012 12:28, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > A new  version using unsigned int for the flag type. It also adds > another use in the C FE. > > I am not asking for

Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

2012-04-29 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
A new version using unsigned int for the flag type. It also adds another use in the C FE. I am not asking for approval, only whether this approach/implementation is the way to go. Cheers, Manuel. On 23 April 2012 20:09, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > So, apart from the type of the flag, are the

Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

2012-04-23 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
So, apart from the type of the flag, are there any other comments on the patch? Is the approach acceptable? On 21 April 2012 17:51, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >>> On 21 Ap

Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

2012-04-21 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> On 21 April 2012 16:22, Gabriel Dos Reis >> wrote: >> > Do no use 'char' as the type of a flag.  Prefer 'unsigned int'. >> > >> >> Thanks, good catch! Should I worry ab

Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

2012-04-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 21 April 2012 16:22, Gabriel Dos Reis > wrote: > > Do no use 'char' as the type of a flag.  Prefer 'unsigned int'. > > > > Thanks, good catch! Should I worry about memory here and use something > shorter? If it is a bool

Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

2012-04-21 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 21 April 2012 16:22, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Do no use 'char' as the type of a flag.  Prefer 'unsigned int'. > Thanks, good catch! Should I worry about memory here and use something shorter? Cheers, Manuel.

Re: [RFC] improve caret diagnostics for overload failures

2012-04-21 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
Do no use 'char' as the type of a flag. Prefer 'unsigned int'. On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > As noticed by Jason in PR 2485. The current output with caret > diagnostics is a bit verbose in some cases: > > wa2.C: In function ‘int main()’: > wa2.C:6:6: error: no mat