On Thu, 25 Apr 2024, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 17:05 -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 4/24/24 13:22, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, full bootstrap+regtest in
> > > > progress,
> > > > does this
On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 17:05 -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 4/24/24 13:22, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, full bootstrap+regtest in
> > > progress,
> > > does this look OK if successful?
> > >
> > > -- >8 --
> > >
> > >
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 4/24/24 13:22, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, full bootstrap+regtest in progress,
> > does this look OK if successful?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> >
> > It seems the diagnostic machinery's source line printing respects
> > the
On 4/24/24 13:22, Patrick Palka wrote:
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, full bootstrap+regtest in progress,
does this look OK if successful?
-- >8 --
It seems the diagnostic machinery's source line printing respects
the pretty printer prefix, but this is undesirable for the call to
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, full bootstrap+regtest in progress,
does this look OK if successful?
-- >8 --
It seems the diagnostic machinery's source line printing respects
the pretty printer prefix, but this is undesirable for the call to
diagnostic_show_locus in
