Hi,
On 28/06/2018 01:31, Jason Merrill wrote:
+/* Returns the smallest location. */
This should probably say "...that is not UNKNOWN_LOCATION."
I agree.
Actually, the places you use min_location would seem to work fine with
max_location as well. What are your criteria for choosing one or the
other?
I should have explained that in better detail. I see two different
circumstances: either we have error messages where we say something like
"cannot be both":
- error ("member %qD cannot be declared both %<virtual%> "
- "and %<static%>", dname);
+ error_at (max_location (declspecs->locations[ds_virtual],
+ declspecs->locations[ds_storage_class]),
+ "member %qD cannot be declared both %<virtual%> "
+ "and %<static%>", dname);
where, in my opinion, we want to point to the max_location, we want to point to
where the contradiction shows up in the code. Or, we have errors like:
- error ("storage class specified for template parameter %qs", name);
+ error_at (min_location (declspecs->locations[ds_thread],
+ declspecs->locations[ds_storage_class]),
+ "storage class specified for template parameter %qs",
+ name);
where ill-formed code has either one or two such specifiers (that is __thread
and/or static) but even one would wrong, thus we want to point to the first
one, thus min_location (this is in fact a variant of the reasoning behind
smallest_type_quals_location).
Did I explain myself clearly enough? If we are going for something simple, I
would suggest uniformly using min_location, not max_location.
By the way, I think I found examples of locations following both the patterns
above in clang and icc too.
Thanks,
Paolo.
