On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:14:54AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> > --- gcc/c/c-parser.c >> > +++ gcc/c/c-parser.c >> > @@ -5141,9 +5141,8 @@ c_parser_statement_after_labels (c_parser *parser, >> > vec<tree> *chain) >> > (recursively) all of the component statements should already have >> > line numbers assigned. ??? Can we discard no-op statements >> > earlier? */ >> > - if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (stmt) >> > - && EXPR_LOCATION (stmt) == UNKNOWN_LOCATION) >> > - SET_EXPR_LOCATION (stmt, loc); >> > + if (EXPR_LOCATION (stmt) == UNKNOWN_LOCATION) >> > + protected_set_expr_location (stmt, loc); >> >> This one doesn't look like an improvement though as EXPR_LOCATION tests >> CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P and returns UNKNOWN_LOCATION if not. > > Yeah, but protected_set_expr_location tests CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P so we > wouldn't set the location anyway. > > But I can surely revert that bit if you prefer.
Well, it's not my call but the original code is clearer if one looks up EXPR_LOCATION. Richard. > Marek
