On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 06:23:08PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 11:40 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > Is there test coverage for these errors and notes?
> >
> > Yes, in this same patch. The error, that is; I have no idea how to
> > test
> > the note, and that belongs
On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 11:40 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:35:00AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 22:47 +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > > index 121a91c..652e53c 1006
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:02:29AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/12/18 10:50 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:31:02AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>>+ {
> >>>+error_at (loc, "duplicate asm qualifier %qE", token->value);
> >>
> >>We have been making an e
On 12/12/18 10:50 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:31:02AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ {
+ error_at (loc, "duplicate asm qualifier %qE", token->value);
We have been making an effort to quote keywords, identifiers,
option names, and other such thin
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:31:02AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >+{
> >+ error_at (loc, "duplicate asm qualifier %qE", token->value);
>
> We have been making an effort to quote keywords, identifiers,
> option names, and other such things in diagnostics. In
> the message above and
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:48:15AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> For bonus points, these could offer fix-it hints, so that an IDE can
> offer to delete the duplicate qualifier token.
Yes it could. But have you ever seen this error, in a real program?
(It was an error before, just without a nice m
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:35:00AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 22:47 +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > index 121a91c..652e53c 100644
> > --- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > +++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > @@ -6360,41 +6
+ {
+ error_at (loc, "duplicate asm qualifier %qE", token->value);
We have been making an effort to quote keywords, identifiers,
option names, and other such things in diagnostics. In
the message above and all others like it in this patch kit
that mention "asm" the keyword
On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 10:35 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 22:47 +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > index 121a91c..652e53c 100644
> > --- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > +++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > @@ -6360,41 +6360,54
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 22:47 +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> index 121a91c..652e53c 100644
> --- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> +++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> @@ -6360,41 +6360,54 @@ c_parser_for_statement (c_parser *parser,
> bool ivdep, unsigned short
Also as suggested by Jason.
Segher
2018-12-10 Segher Boessenkool
c/
* c-parser.c (c_parser_asm_statement): Keep track of the location each
asm qualifier is first seen; use that to give nicer "duplicate asm
qualifier" messages. Delete 'quals" variable, instead pass t
11 matches
Mail list logo
