http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #34 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-13 09:56:48 UTC --- (In reply to comment #32) > (In reply to comment #31) > > The effect of this patch on overload resolution diagnostics is problematic: > > wa2.C: In function ‘int main()’: > > wa2.C:6:6: error: no matching function for call to ‘f(int)’ > > f(1); > > ^ > > wa2.C:6:6: note: candidates are: > > f(1); > > ^ > > wa2.C:1:6: note: void f() > > void f(); > > ^ > > wa2.C:1:6: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided > > void f(); > > ^ > > wa2.C:2:6: note: void f(int, int) > > void f(int,int); > > ^ > > wa2.C:2:6: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided > > void f(int,int); > > ^ > > > > When there are multiple diagnostics at the same input location, we should > > only > > print the source/caret information once. > > True. Actually, in this case, perhaps we should print: > > wa2.C:6:6: error: no matching function for call to ‘f(int)’ > f(1); > ^ > note: candidates are: > wa2.C:1:6: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided > void f(); > ^ > wa2.C:2:6: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided > void f(int,int); > ^ > > no? Any other suggestions? > > We could also print the %qD in the same line as: > > wa2.C:6:6: error: no matching function for call to ‘f(int)’ > f(1); > ^ > note: candidates are: > wa2.C:1:6: note: candidate 'void f()' expects 0 arguments, 1 provided > void f(); > ^ > wa2.C:2:6: note: candidate 'void f(int, int)' expects 2 arguments, 1 > provided > void f(int,int); > ^ > > What do you think? I think we should simply omit carets for all 'note's for now and add a way for the callers to suppress carets. Though if you consider the testcase changed to void f(); void f(int,int); int main() { f(1); } then suddenly the carets get more useful and the situation less clear: t.C: In function 'int main()': t.C:5:6: error: no matching function for call to 'f(int)' f(1); ^ t.C:5:6: note: candidates are: f(1); ^ t.C:1:6: note: void f() void f(); void f(int,int); ^ t.C:1:6: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided void f(); void f(int,int); ^ t.C:1:17: note: void f(int, int) void f(); void f(int,int); ^ t.C:1:17: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided void f(); void f(int,int); ^ btw, why do we print a location info for t.C:5:6: note: candidates are: f(1); ^ at all? t.C:1:6: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided void f(); void f(int,int); ^ t.C:1:17: note: void f(int, int) void f(); void f(int,int); ^ and the 2nd note here looks wrong.