On 25 May 2015 at 22:16, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 May 2015 at 21:56, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Perhaps we should introduce GCC_BAD_LOC with a location_t argument and use it >> here. > > Why would we want to obfuscate code like that? I would propose to > actually remove GCC_BAD completely. > Hi It looks like this patch has finally been committed on 2015-09-18 (r227923), right?
I can see the newly introduced test (gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c) failing: /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c:2:83: warning: missing [error|warning|ignored|push|pop] after '#pragma GCC diagnostic' [-Wpragmas] /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c:4:24: warning: expected [error|warning|ignored|push|pop] after '#pragma GCC diagnostic' [-Wpragmas] /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c:6:32: warning: unknown option after '#pragma GCC diagnostic' kind [-Wpragmas] XFAIL: gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c missing (test for warnings, line 2) PASS: gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c (test for warnings, line 4) PASS: gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c (test for warnings, line 6) FAIL: gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c:2:83: warning: missing [error|warning|ignored|push|pop] after '#pragma GCC diagnostic' [-Wpragmas] I'm not sure why, since the 1st warning is xfail. Christophe. > Manuel.
