On 11/22/19 10:43 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
I would say most of the changes are straightforward or mechanical.
Essentially, for build_new_op_1 and cp_build_modify_expr I'm simply
consistently using the available location argument; for
cp_build_indirect_ref_1 I'm adding the parameter but then using it in a
completely straightforward way. Minor nit: I wondered for a while if
cp_build_modify_expr should use cp_expr_loc_or_loc more - normally the
passed loc points to the '=' - but eventually, given the actual texts of
the messages, I used it only in one place, for "void value not ignored
as it ought to be" which is mostly about the type of 'rhs'. All the
other messages in one way or the other talk about both sides (the
primary clang caret appears to agree).
Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks, Paolo.
//////////////////////////////
OK.
Jason
