https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61803
Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I would suggest file it against C++, just because there are more regular
> contributors to C++ (Jason and Paolo) than to C (only Joseph and not nearly
> as regular).
I added the "diagnostic" keyword.
> In this case yes, but this is not always the case: See PR5252.
I think that's the wrong PR number but I couldn't easily find the
correct one.
I think the approach in this bug will yield the desired result more
often. It seems to me that no approach can be perfect as the "real"
location of the bug depends on human judgment and also the way that
the macro is written. However, I believe the preponderance of macros
are written in such a way that the error is at the point of use.
