On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Certainly better. But I fail to see why a different location would be >> better than the original here. I assume all tokens have a correct initial >> location. Then why is for example for int i; in (int) i the location of >> the conversion a better location than the one of i in the folded result? > > I don't care either way. > > OK pending tests?
Ok. Thanks, Richard. > PR bootstrap/41451 > * fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): Do not call > protected_set_expr_location. > > Index: fold-const.c > =================================================================== > --- fold-const.c (revision 153549) > +++ fold-const.c (working copy) > @@ -10134,7 +10134,6 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > tem = fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type, > fold_convert_loc (loc, TREE_TYPE (op0), > TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1)), op1); > - protected_set_expr_location (tem, loc); > tem = build2 (COMPOUND_EXPR, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0), tem); > goto fold_binary_exit; > } > @@ -10144,7 +10143,6 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > tem = fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type, op0, > fold_convert_loc (loc, TREE_TYPE (op1), > TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1))); > - protected_set_expr_location (tem, loc); > tem = build2 (COMPOUND_EXPR, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0), tem); > goto fold_binary_exit; > } >
