On Sat, 2017-04-22 at 19:49 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there are currently two types of line number supported in
> dg-{error,warning,message,bogus} directives: absolute and relative.
> With an absolute line number, it's immediately clear what line number
> is
> meant, but when a line is added at the start of the file, the line
> number needs to be updated. With a relative line number, that
> problem
> is solved, but when relative line numbers become large, it becomes
> less
> clear what line it refers to, and when adding a line inbetween the
> directive using the relative line number and the line it refers to,
> the
> relative line number still needs to be updated.
>
> This patch adds a directive dg-save-linenr with argument varname,
> that
> saves the line number of the directive in a variable varname, which
> can
> be used as line number in dg directives.
>
> Testing status:
> - tested updated test-case objc.dg/try-catch-12.m
> - ran tree-ssa.exp
>
> RFC:
> - good idea?
Excellent idea; thanks! There are various places where I'd find this
useful.
> - naming of directive dg-save-linenr (dg-linenr, dg-save-line-nr,
> dg-save-lineno, dg-save-line-number, etc)
How about just "dg-line"? (if it's not already taken)
or "dg-name-line" / "dg-named-line" ?
in that the directive is effectively giving the line a name, giving:
[...]
extern void some_func (int *); /* { dg-line some_func_decl } */
[...]
/* { dg-message "but argument is of type" "" { target *-*-* }
some_func_decl } */
> - allowed variable names (currently: start with letter, followed by
> alphanumerical or underscore)
Seems reasonable; lack of leading digit allows it to be distinguished
from absolute and relative numbers.
> - should we use a prefix symbol or some such when the variable is
> used
> (and possibly defined as well)? F.i.:
> /* { dg-save-linenr %some_func_decl } *./
> /* { dg-message "but argument is of type" "" { target *-*-* }
> %some_func_decl } */
These are sometimes called "sigils".
I'd prefer not.
> - error message formulation
Nit: the new function should have a leading comment, explaining the
usage.
Thanks again
Dave
