https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #19 from Dodji Seketeli ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #16)
> I've tripped across this enough that I've actually filed dups twice now.
>
> I think it would be best to change the ordering here.
> That is, the initial error o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> It would be less of a pain if -Wsystem-headers caused both locations to be
> printed, but it doesn't, so sometimes the only option is to dump the
> prep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It would be less of a pain if -Wsystem-headers caused both locations to be
printed, but it doesn't, so sometimes the only option is to dump the
preprocessed source without line markers and then compile tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #16 from Tom Tromey ---
I've tripped across this enough that I've actually filed dups twice now.
I think it would be best to change the ordering here.
That is, the initial error ought to generally be the
location of the outermost exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #15 from Tom Tromey ---
*** Bug 61803 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doront at mellanox dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
PR52962 is another case where it would make more sense to give the error on the
macro expansion location rather than on the macro definition.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael at talamasca dot
ocis.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #10 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-19 17:18:00 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> The idea seems good. It would also handle comment #4 testcase.
Yeah, and I think it would be a step in the direction of printing r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #9 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-19 17:05:57 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Hum, I am not sure why the macro unwinder avoids unwinding if the
> macro comes from a system-header. If a warning message comes fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-11-19
16:50:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Would that make sense in the grand scheme of things?
The idea seems good. It would also handle comment #4 testcase. However, I am
not sure how you wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-19 16:34:11 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> On the other hand, let's consider:
> pr55252.c:
>
> #define bar 256
> #include "pr55252.h"
>
> pr55252.h:
>
> #pragma GCC system_hea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #6 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-19 16:17:20 UTC ---
> I think this his how the macro expansion was designed to work: It
> shows the location of the token that triggered the error.
Yes. And there are cases where the GCC wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-10
23:20:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> On the other hand, this is a very contrived testcase. I
> wouldn't expect in normal code that the expansion point to be in a
> system-header and th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-11-10
23:10:32 UTC ---
On the other hand, let's consider:
pr55252.c:
#define bar 256
#include "pr55252.h"
pr55252.h:
#pragma GCC system_header
signed char foo = bar;
In this case, I would expect th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-11-10
22:58:16 UTC ---
Hum, I am not sure why the macro unwinder avoids unwinding if the macro comes
from a system-header. If a warning message comes from a system-header, then it
should have been sup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
19 matches
Mail list logo
