http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #36 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-13
11:34:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> (In reply to comment #34)
> >
> > btw, why do we print a location info for
> >
> > t.C:5:6: note: candidates are:
> > f(1);
> > ^
> >
> > at all?
>
> I am proposing to print just: "note: candidates are:", with enough leading
> empty space to align with the previous error and no caret. Is that OK?
> Richard,
> Jason?
Sounds good to me. But I think GNU conventions require a location here?
> >
> > 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.
>
> Could you explain why?
Because void f(int, int) is not of type "candidate expects 0 arguments" but
it is of expects two which is duplicate of the following
t.C:1:17: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
void f(); void f(int,int);
^
But that's of course a different bug.
