On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/07/2012 06:25 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> (is re-setting _every_ stmt location really ok in all cases?) > > I'm certain that it's not, though you can't tell that from C++. > > Examine instead a Java test case using try-finally. In Java the > contents of the finally would be incorrectly relocated from their > original source line to the new line Dehao has decided upon.
This makes sense. I was thinking what else can reside in the finally block, and apparently I was ignoring Java... > > I can see the desire for wanting the call to ~t() to appear from > the return statement. And for C++ we'll get the correct lines for > the contents of ~t() post inlining (which happens after tree-eh). Even if inline gives it right source position, it'll still have incorrect inline stack. > > But unless the C++ front end uses something like UNKNOWN_LOCATION > on the destructor call, I don't see how we can tell the Java and > C++ cases apart. And if we can't, then I don't think we can make > this change at all. Then we should probably assign UNKNOWN_LOCATION for these destructor calls, what do you guys think? Thanks, Dehao > > > r~
